SRI S. A v. RATNAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In the light of the saitl submission, notice to respondent No.5 is tlispensed with. This Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to cousidcr and dispose of the representations dated 25.08.2025 and 15.09.2025 submined by the petitioncr seeking rntrtalion of his nanrc in…
Judgment
Cause title
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 a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the n,ature of writ of f\4andamus directing the Respondents 2 to 4 to incorporate my name in the Rervenue records for Ac. 1 -00 Gts., of land out of Ac.2-00 Gts., in the p ace of the 5th Respondent in Sy. No.439/1 B of Dandepalty Revenue Village, Yelkaturthi lvlandal, Hanamkonda District in pursuance of my representatrons. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court mal be pleased to direct tlre Respondents 2 to 4 to consider my representations for r;orporation of name for Ac.1 00 Gts.. of land out of Ac.2-00 Gts., in the place of li : 5th Respondent in S,y.No. 439/18 of Dandepally Revenue Village, Yelkaturthi l,l rndal, Hanamkonda District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. A. V. RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENIJ : Counsel for the Respondent No.5:---- The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE IIONOUR4.BLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAI, WRIT PETITION No.32180 of 2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, undcr Article 226 ol the Constitution of India, is ti lecl seeking thc fbllor, ving r.cliet ''...to issuc cttt ortlcr/clircclion or w,ril in the nuture o.f ll'[undutttts dirctting re.spondanl Nos.2 to 4 to incorporutc lis nanrc in tlrc ret eturc record fitr Ac.1.00 grntas, out oJ totaL cttenr Acs.2.00 guntas, in S_v.No 439/18 situuted at Dandcpally Villagc, l'cll; ururthi kfuttlal, Hanantkonda District, itt pursuancc of hi.s rcprescntolions or pass such othcr orcler or
Hearcl leanred counscl Ibr the petitioner and Mr.L.Ravinder. leanrcd Assistant Covernment Pleader for Revenu e.
Petitioner herein is claiming that his lather, narnely, late Sri Sudhireddy Ilanurnaiah was the absolute owner and possessor ol land adrneasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.439/18, situated at Dandepally village, Yelkaturlhi Mandal, Hanarnkonda District, on tht: strength of registcred sale deed bealing Documcnt No.l094 ol 1971, dated 10.01.1973. His father died 30 years ago. During his tif'etime, he partitioned tlre subject propefty eclually i.e., Ac.l.00 guntas each, to both petitioner and -- respondent No.-5, brotlicl ol the petitioner. Sini : then petitioner along with respondeut No.5 used to cultivatc th: subjcct propedy Sointly. Recently, he catnc to know that the nat e of respondent No.5 was rnutated iu thc revenue record in res[)( ct of the subject property and issuccl grattadar passbook. -I'hus, . tere is a wtong ently. Ther-efbre, he has sLrbn'rittcd rcplts:tltatiot.ts dated
25.08.2025 and 15.09.2025 Lo rcspondent . r.3 Rcvenue Divisional Officer with a requcst to rectify t re w'rong ently, rnutate lris naure in respcct ol his sharc i.e., Ac. I 00 guntas in the revenue record and issue pattadat passbook. I cspite receiving and acknou'lcdging the said rept-esentations. r'e t; ondent No.3 did not act upon the sarne. Aggricvecl by thc aicl inaction of rcspondent No.3, petitioner Irlccl the prescnt $t Lr pctrtton.
Mr.t,.Ravinder, learned Assistant Covern, icnt Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, '"vould submit that cspondent No.3 will consider the said reprcscnta tiotts subruittetl ry the petitioner seekir.rg rnutation and issuc of pattadar pa; booh and pass appropriate oldcrs. in accordance ,uvith the proc :dure laid down under law, by putting the petitioncr-, respottct tt No.5 and all interestecl parties on notice ancl aflording thetn I tlpporlunity -
Operative part
In the light of the saitl submission, notice to respondent No.5 is tlispensed with. This Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to cousidcr and dispose of the representations dated 25.08.2025 and 15.09.2025 submined by the petitioncr seeking rntrtalion of his nanrc in respcct of his share i.e., Ac. 1.00 gLrntas in Sy.No.439/18, situated at Dandepalty village, Yelkaturrhi Mandal, Hanarnkonda District, and lor issuance of the pattailar passbook, strictly in accordance with the procedure laicl clown undcr larv, by putting the petitioner, respondenl No.5 and alI interestcd pafties on notice and affording thcrn an opllorlunity. If respondent No.3 is not inclined to accept the request rnade by the pctitioner, he shall assign specitic reasolts, l)ass a rcasoned order and cotnmunicate copy of thc saue to the pctitioncr. Howcver, he shall cornpletc the entirc exercisc as cxlleclitiotrsly as possiblc. Misccllaneous applications, il- any pendirlg, shall stand closed. Therc shall bc no ordcr as to costs SD/.M . JAWAHAR REDDY SSISTA NT REGISTR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To,
The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana' Revenue Department' Telangand State HYderabad
2. The District Collector, HanamakonCa District' 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer' Hanamakonda -- co+d --
4. TheMandalRevenueofficer. YelkaturthiMandal. Hanarnal.)ndaDistrict 5. One CC to Sri S. A V. Ratnam, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs, to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of ',I t angana at Hyderabad [OUT] 7 Two CD CoPies TJ I]S Pr^!^- HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 ORDER WP.No.32180 of 2025 .si ( rE /, C)() 1' rE$ lffi tr.:L':tl NISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION IVITHOUT COSTS (90^^ a\>\ z.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.