1. S.swaroopa Rani v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the official respondents not considering ihe representation for mutation dt. ogt12t2o21 and petition for correctio_n of Revenue Records before the 3'd Respondenl dt.20l12l2o2'l , consequently direct the official respondents to delta the name of Sth respondent and incorporate the name of the petitioners for land admeasuring Ac.2-24 gts', in Sy No' 207 of AAlOutt, Village, lblahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.Dist., and orders may be passed accordingly in the interest of justice. I !ANo: 10F 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Official Respondents to block the Sy.No. 207 of Adibatla Village for making further transactions to avoid the multiplicity of litigations pending disposal of the Writ Petition and orders may be passed accordingly in the interest of justice !A NO:2 oF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.s not to alienate and not to create the third party right over the scheduled property land admeasuring Ac.2-24 gts., in Sy. No. 207 of Adibatla Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.Dist and orders may be passed accordingly in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4: SMT. S. SRAVANTHI, ASST. GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR The Court made the following: ORDER 1 SK,.J W.P.No.238 of 2022 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH ORDER: SI.P.No.238 of 2022 This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the official respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioners for mutation dated 09.L2.2021 and petition for correction of revenue records dated 2O.L2.2O21 before the respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the official respondents to delete the narne of the respondent No.5 and incorporate the names of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-24 gls in Sy.No .2O7 situated at Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.l to 4 and Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 2 SK, J W.P.No.238 of 2022

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of petitioners namely Rukmini Das was paftadar of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:2-24 gts in Sy.No.2O7 situated at Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and his

1.ame was reflected in the pahani up to the year, 1978 and after his death, the petitioners are in possession of the said property by cultivating the land from several decades. When the petitioners have approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for pattadar passbooks, the names of Mr. Mokira Narayana and Anitha Rani were reflected in the pahanies for some time and now in Dharani Portal, the nzune of the respondent No.S is shown for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.L-L2 gts in Sy.No.207/ 1 and Ac.L-I2 gts in Sy.No.2O7 /2 without any valid transaction and without any sale deed from the father of the petitioners or from the petitioners. He further submits that though the petitioners have ntade a representation to the a, aJ SK, J W.P.No.238 oI2022 respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 09.12.2021 and also a petition before the respondent No.2-District collector, Ranga Reddy on 2o.L2.2o21 for correction of the records, no action has been taken and requested to allow the writ petition by directing the official respondents to consider the representation and the petition filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders as per law.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 based on the counter submits that one G. Rukmandas s/o.chenna Kistaiah has executed registered sale deed vide document No. 1662 of LSTT in favour of Aakanti Anita Rani w / o. Prakash in . respect of land ad.measuring to an extent of Ac:2-07 gts in Sy.No .2OT and the said extent was rectified to Ac.2-24 gts under Rectification Deed dated 08.07. rgr7 vide Doc.No.1g14 of 1977 and thus, the entire land held by Rukmand.as was sold in favour of Aakanti Anita Rani and later her daughters namely Aakanti Neeraja and Barra Jalaja 4 SK, J W -P-No.238 of 2022 have executed registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.982 of 2O2l and 981 of 2O2I respectively dated 14.07.2O2L in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1-12 gts each in Sy.No.2O7 in favour of the respondent No.s. He further submits that the subject land was sold long back in the year, 1977 itself and ever since the vendor of the respondent No.S was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and after purchase, the name of the respondent No.5 was mutated in the revenue records and e-pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favour and his name is reflecting in Dharani Portal in respect of the subject land. He further submits that the petitioners have no right to initiate any proceedings before the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisiona-l Officer and they are not entitled for correction of records and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the \ 5 SK, J W.P.No.238 of 2022 petitioners are seeking for correction of records basing on their representation dated 09.L2.202L and the petition dated 20 .I2.2O2L , but they have not qu'estioned the mutation granted in favour of the unofficial respondent No.5. The respondent No.S has filed registered documents along with the counter with regard to the suit schedule property purchased by him and also mutation of the revenue records in his favour and also his vendor. In view of the sarne, the petitioners without filing any suit for declaration of title filed representation before the authorities for mutation of the records in their favour by deleting the name of the respondent No.5. In view of the disputed question of facts, the writ petition is not maintainable. If the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the entries in the revenue records, they have to approach the competent Civil Court by filing appropriate suit for declaration of title and after disposal of the sarne, they can approach the authorities for mutation of the r

1., 6 SK, J w.P.No.238 of 2O22 records and without doing the same, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.

6. In view of the above findings, the Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed. SD/- .M LLIKARJUNA RAO TANT REG]STRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 N/ One CC to SRI PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI PERI PRABHAKAR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD Copies BN TKS HIGH COURT DATED i1911112025 / / i ) ORDER WP.No.238 of 2022 ;-) t; * 1:rr: S 14 iq: l\ Z t5 DEr &t I * 'Jrr,-' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS