The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. THE GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad THE JOINT COLLECTOR, Ranga Reddy District Office at Kongarakaian Village lbrahimpatnam Mandal, RR District THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, lbrahimpatnam Division, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, RR District

4. THE TAHSILDAR, Hayathnagar Mandal RR District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstiances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue the writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation Dt. 241O3,t2025 submitted by Sri. Palem Krishna Gaud., the GPA and the Agreement of Sale Holder of the petitioners no. 1 to 5 (who are the legal representatives of Late Gulda Jangaiah, the Protected Tenant) and the Petitioners no. 6 to 13 (who are the legal representatives of Late Smt. Saraswati Bai. the Pattadar) for causing mutation of his name of Sri. Palem Krishna Goud and to issue the New Pattadar Passbook cum Title deed as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to cause mutation and issue the Pattadar Passbook anct Title Deed in favour of Sri. Palem Krishna Goud in respect of the land in an e:xtent of Ac. 20-13 Guntas in sy. no. 2rs and 2g0 of Bagh Hayathnagar Viltage and Mandal, RR District, so also to cause survey and demarcatioo crf the said land. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petitiorr 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 pass the interim direction directing the respondents to cause survey/ demarcation of the tand in arn extent of Ac. 20-13 Guntas in Sy. no. 2ls and 2g0 of Bagh Hayathnagar Village and Mandal, RR District pending disposat of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. VENKATESWER RAO counsel for the Respondents: sRl L. RAVINDER, AGp REPRESENTTNG GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER ':'1 THE HON'BLT SRI JTISTICE E.V.VENUGIOPAL IIRIT PEIITION No.31 251 oF 20/25, ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering tlre petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2025, requesting mutation of his name in the revenue records, issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, and conducting a survey in respect of land measuring Acs.20.13 guntas in Sy. Nos. 275 and 29O of Bagh Hayathnagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter will be referred to as 'subject propertyl, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri M.Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally, one Smt. T. Saraswati Bai was the pattadar/landowner of the subject property. However, the Page 2 ofE names of one Sri Doulath singh and the said T. Sarasrvati Bai were r'-.flected in ttre pahanies for the years 1955-56 to 1958-59. One Gudala Jangaiah was the protected tenant of the subjecr: propert5r, and his narne was also recorded in the pahanies rluring the aforesaid period. The said Jangaiah passed aw;ly on 24.O2.Lgg4, and after his demise, his three sons-nar.ely G. Venkataiah, G. Ramulu, and G. Krishna Murthy----c,rntinued to be in possession of the land. While G. Venkataiah died teaving behind his son G. Ravi, G. Krishna Murthy also passed away on 08.08.2003, leaving behind his sons G. l,axrnaiah, G. Devendar, and G. Mahender.

4. He r;ubmits that during the lifetime of the said Jangaiah, when the name of Doulath Singh was entered in the revenue records in his place, Jangaiah filed an appeal in Case No. '.F2/7372/1988 on the file of the 2"d respondent, which was, dismissed on 22.05.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the legal heirs of Jangaiah filed W.p. No. 1ggg5 of 2008, which is still pending. He further submits that tl.e petitioners in W.P. No. 1ggg5 of 200g, who are the legal heirs ofJangaiah, approached the present petitioner seeking Page 3 ofE financial assistance and to pursue ttre litigation on their behalf. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding dated L7.Og.2llgwas executed in f,avour of the petitioner herein. Subsequenfly, the legal heirs of Jangaiah, along with the legal heirs of Doulath Singh, executed a General Power of Attorney on O4.O7.2O15 in favour of tl.e petitioner, thereby compromising the matter among themselves.

5. Learned counsel also submits that the legal heirs of Jangaiah, i.e., Gudala Venkataiah and seven others, filed Pre-litigation Case No. 24O of 2016 before the District Legal Services Authorit5r, Ranga Reddy District, against T. Prakash Singh and others. Subsequenfly, PLC No. 24O of 2O16 was compromised, and a Lok Adalat Award was passed on

22.07.2016. In pursuance of the said award, the petitioner, being GPA holder, submitted an application bearing No. MU0216O0987818 dated 30.08.2Ot6 for mutation of his narne. He further submits that tJ:e 4th respondent issued Memo No. B|L3O|2O2L dated 05.04.2021 directing the Mandal Surveyor to identiff the vacant land not covered under structures in Sy. Nos. 275 and 2QO and submit a Page 4 ofE report. The petitioner also submitted another F.-line application on 11.06.2O21 with the 4th respondent for conducting a suryey, demarcating the land, and fixing the boundaries;. The 4th respondent tJrereafter issued Endorsement No. B/130 /2O2L dated, !4.O6.2O2L, advising the petitioner to lile the relevant petitions through the Dharani portal.

6. Leanred counsel for the petitioner further submits that tlre petitioner filed W.P. No. L4ZSI of 2023 challengng the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting his online applicatiorr bearing Transaction ID No. HS22OOOO314Z for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Vide order dated, 07.07.2023, this Court set aside the impugned order of the 2nd respondent and directed a reclnsideration of the petitioner':s application. However, the 4th respondent issued proceedin5;s vide Letter No. 8/836/2022 dated, O2.Oa.2O24 stating that the petitioners therein, except for producing certain communications from this Court and other miscellaneous material, had not submitted any concrete evidence 1.o establish their titre over the rand. He submits 'I Page 5 ofE tl:at the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 28.08.2024 to the Chief Commissioner of ,La4a Administration and. another representation to the District Collector, Rartga Reddy District on 24.03.2025, requesting action against the 4th respondent. He also submitted yet arrother representation dated 24.06.2025 to the 4tJ1, respondent seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records ald for conducting a survey. Hence, he prays to allow this Writ Petition.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue vehemently contends that the case of the original protected tenant, namdly Gudala Jangaiatr, was already dismissed by the 2nd respond.ent in Case No. F2 /73721 1988, dated 22.o5.2OO4. Challenging the said proceed.ings, tl.e petitioners filed w.P. No. 18885 of 2008, which is still pending before this Court. That being the case, the petitioner, being only the GPA holder of the petitioners in the above writ petition, c€u1not independently fiIe representations seeking mutation of his name in tl:e revenue records merely on the basis of an alleged agreement of sale Page 6 ofE executed by both the legal heirs of Gudala Jangaiah (the alleged protected tenant) and Smt. Saraswathi Bai (the alleged original pattadar). The claim of the petitioner has already been rejected by the 4th respondent vide letter dated

02.O8.2}2,taddressed to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District. He, therefc,re, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Having heard ttre learned counsel for the petitioner and ttre learne,l Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, and after peru,sing the material on record, this Court is of tJ.e considered opinion that the petitioner, being a GpA holder, has repea.tedly submitted representations to t.lle official respondents for mutation of his name, conducting a survey, and dema::cation of the subject land on untenable grounds. The title of the original pattadar as well as the protected tenant was already rejected by the 2'd respondent in bearing Case No. F2/737211988, dated

22.O5.2OO+, which has been challenged in W.p. No. 1ggg5 of 2OO8 and same is pending adjudication. The petitioner is claiming rights over the subject propert5r based on the lok Adalat Aw,ard passed in pLC No. 240 of 2OL6.If the award of Page 7 ofE tlle t,ok Adalat is not implemented, the petitioner has to work out his remedies as per the law established, but not by filing the present writ petition. Therefore, the alleged compromise between the legal heirs of Late Gudala Jangarah and Smt. Saraswathi Bai and the award passed by the Iok Adalat in PLC No. 240 of 2016 is of no legal consequence in the absence of clear title.

9. That apart, the petitioner has failed to implead the necessary officiat respondents, namely, the District Collector and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, against whom the relief is sought in the present writ petition. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if arry, shall stand dismissed. SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To \

1. One CC to SRI M. VENKATESWER RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

3. Two CD CoPies .tf MP BM I I ! i : t HIGH COURT DATED -.1511A12025 f I : tts- t 3 to ruB toim * a ORDER WP.No.31251 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *ir! 4/d 7rC' v4