Kasala Raghavender Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVEII JE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3165O of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner has invoked the junsdiction ol tl.ris Court uncler Arlicle 226 of the ConsLitutioll o[ Inclia, sr:cking issuance o[ a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 4th respondent Tahsildar in clfccting mutation of agricultural lancl admeasuring Ac 6 2O gts , comprising Ac.2.37 gts. in S,v-No-33/AA/ 1, Ac.2.O3 gts Sv.No.40/A/2, Ac.O.3O gts. in Sy No.43/ Al2/A' Ac.O.16 gts in ir-t Sv.No.64 and Ac.0.14 gts. in Sy.No.65, situ:rtcd at Arutla Village, Kandi M.rndal, Sangareddy District, in favour of the 5d' respondent and issuing pattadar pass book bearing No.T0908OO 10653, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles o[ natural justicc and contrary to thc. provisions of the Tclangana Bhu Bharathi Records of Rights in Land Act, 2025.

2. Heard N.Manohar, learned counsel for the petiLioner and Sri Surender Rao and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government plcader appearing on behall of learnecl Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar ReddY.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has hled the present Writ Petition challenging the action of I i i I Page 2 ol5 \. .\ the 4th respondent Tahsildar in mutating agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.20 gts., comprising Ac.2.37 g : . n Sy.No- 33lAAl l, Ac.2.03 gts- r1r Sy.No.40lA/2, Ac.O-3O gts. in Sy.\: ,+31Al2lA, Ac.0.16 gts. in Sy.No.64, zrnd Ac.O- 14 gts. in Sy.No.65 ol r rutla Viliage, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District, in favour of thc lth respondcnt and issuing Pattadar Pass Book No.T09O80010653, rvitl out consiclering the pe trtioner's rcpresenlations dated 27.04.2025, (l r O5.2C)25 :rnd legal noticc dated 1q.08.2025. (:r) Ttre learncd counsel for the petitioner --ontends th:rt such action is illegal. arbitrary, violative of the principle ; of natural justice ancl contrary to the provisions of the Telangana 81 r . Bharathi (Records of Rights in Land) Act, 2025. Further, the petiricr cr's late f:rther, Sri Venkat Redcll', was the absolute owner and pcs sessor of the said agricultural lands and died intestate on OZ .O8.2O'.2 2 leaving behind his wife the 51i, respondent herein, the petition l and his sister, Smt. P. Sr,r,arnalatha, as his legal heirs. ^ Smt. P- He malatha, had predeceased him, leavi r nother daughter, s two daughters, Kum.Nikhila ancl Kum.Nichhala, as her legal heirs;. 'he petitioner upon learning about tl're proposed mutation of the lands j rielf in the name of thc Sth rcspondent, submitted representations da I '<1 27.04.2025 and 06-05.2025, requesting that the mutation not be e . ctcd n ithout the consent of all lcga1 heirs. As no action was tal<,:; r ) ) l''"1'oj'"*' -o" notice dated 19.08.2025 [o respondents 2 to 4. lt is alleged that the 4th respondent, ignoring these objections, proceeded to mutate thc property and issued the pattadar pass book in the name o[ the 5rl' resPondent. (b) The petitioner relies upot.r Section 7 o[ thc Bhu Bhar:rthi AcL, 2025, which mandates submission of a joint statement by all lcgal heirs in cascs of intestate succession r-hilt-- seeking mutation. It is contcnded that the 4,h respondent tailed to adhere to the saicl statutor-v procedure and effected mutation n'ithout oblaining a jriint statcmcnt lrorn all lcgal heirs, thereb], acting in violatiotr of Scction 7 of thc Act and the principles of natural justice. The pe titioner asscrts that the said mutation and issuance of the pattadar pass book are illegal' arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. (.) It is further alleged that the 5e respondent, taking advantage of the impugned mutation and patLadar pass book issued in her favour, is attempting to alienate the subject lands to third parties' The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court to safeguard his lawful rights and prevent irreparable loss

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submits that the 4d' respondent Tahsildar acted strictly in accordance u'ith the provisions of I l I Page 4 ofs the Telangana tsl-ru Bharathr (Records ol Rights ir-r I and) Act, 2025 and the rulcs framed thcreunder. Pursuant to a pet r l on filed by the 5n respondent secking srrcr:cssion to the subject l:rn: consequent to hcr husband's dcmise, thc 4th respondent issued noLr : : No.Bl4402l2025, dated NiI.09.2025, to all interested parties, directrr r them to appear on

16.09.2025. A nolicc under Rule 7(3) of the sai<t r ct u'as also issucd inviting objcctions and was duly affixed on Lho l r>tice board of thc Gram Panchal ar. On rcceipt of objections from th< petitione r claiming a share in the propertv, the Sft respondent clarifrec that the petitior-rer hacl alrcady bccn allotted his share during the lift:r i ne of her husband. Considcring thc material on record and the zrt) e'nce of anv valid objections thereafter, the 4d, respondent passed ,r mutatiort order in lavour of the Sth respondent. The learned Ass stant (]overnment Pleader filed er copy of the proceedings No.B/ 140212023, d.aLed

24.09.2025 oi the Tasildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangz Reddy District to substantiate rhe above facts. The learned As; stant Governmenl Pleader contcnds that the petitioner, having deliL:rately suppressed these facts, trpproached this Court under a r risconception and thereforc, the u'rit petition is liable to be dismissed .

5. Having heard the learned counsel on lr, th sides and upon perusal of thc material on record, particularly the pr rceeclings of the 4ti, respondent 'l':rhsildar relerred io above, this Court i; of the considered :i i z t ! Pagc 5 of 5 opin ion that the petitioner, having received notice from the 4tl' respondent, appeared before him, submitted objections and upon rejection thercof, has supprcssed these facts before this court. Hence, the 1;ctitioner is not cntitled to the relief sought ill the pl csctrr u'rit pelition, which is accordingly liable to be dismissed Hor'r'cvt'r' tn vicw c'f the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, libert], is gr:rr-rled to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as availablc undcr las'.

6. [n tl-re result, the writ petition is dismisscct No orcler as trr thc costs. Miscellancous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/.S. MALLIKARJU NA RAO SISTANT REGISTR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER one CC to SRI N. IMANoHAR, Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFORREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad . [OUT] Two CD CoPies To, 1 2 2 PMK BS HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ORDER WP.No.31650 of 2025 ,) O \\ ( * i f!t ) rA c 28 rr 2i2[ (, ''Hc { vY' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l.s \\*.O' I I ! I