The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.PRANEETH FOR SRt p.L,{KSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: Ms. DARA HARITHA KIRAN, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 10: - The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT AGP FOR RE\/ENUE THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHT'MI BIIATTACIIARYA AND THE HON'BI,E JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR I.A.No.1 OF 2025 IN AND WRIT APPEAL No.1213 OF 2o25 Mr A Prareeth, learned counsel representrng Mr.P.Lakshma Reddy, Ieatned couns€l appea-ring lor thc appellant. Ms.Dara Haritha Kiran, thc learned Assistant Government Plcader for Rcvenue appearing for the respoodent Nos I to 4- COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'blc Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out o[ an order dated O9.09.2025 in W.P.No.S9 | of 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge wherein the Writ Petition f rled by the appellant/ petitioner was disposed of by giving liberty to the appellant/ petitioner to submit a fresh application ventilating his grievance before the respondent No.4/Tahsildar and Joint Sub Registrar, Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial Disrrict in accordance with the procedure laid down by law and also directing the respondent No.4 to consider and dispose of the said application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months thereafter.

2. The appellant/ petitioner had filed the Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the respondent No.4 i.e., the Succession Summary dated

08.1O.2O21 in granting succession of the lands in Sy.No.50/6 to 2 --+ an extent of Acs.2.OO Guntas and Sy.No.9O/ 1 to an cxtent of Ac.0.14 Guntas both situated at Jendavenkatl)ur Village, Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial District in fa\r,)ur of the respondent No.5/ K.Rajaiah as being illegal, arbitrary, in patent violation of the principles of natural justice, con[rar_\' to thc provisions ol'The Telargana Rights in Land and Pilttadar Pass Books Act, 2.O2O as well as that of The Indian Slrcccssion Act, 1925 and violative of Article s 14, 2l and 30O A of 'lhe Constitution of India. Thc appellant/ petitioner aJs'r prayed for setting asidc the entries in respect of the said lands in the respondent No.S's E-Pattadar Pass Book cum T tle l)eed vicle number T15120050 1 I 1 and for directing the rcspr,ndcnr, No.zl to rcvert the entries in respect of the said lands in thc narne ol the originai patl adar and consequently set aside the sarne. The appellant/ petitioner's contention therein was tha r thc grantir-rg of the said lands in favour of the respondent No.5 ,.r'as contrrlry to the Will Deed executed by the original pattadar ancl had been done without issuing any notice or opport rrlity to t he appellant/ p<:titioner and also without colrs.derrng the appellant/petitioner's objection dated 04. 1.O.2O'21.

3. Learncd counsel appearing for the appellanr/ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge failed to s:anl relief to 3 the appellant and also failed to dispose of the I.A.No.l of 2023 in W.P.No.89 1 of 2022 for impleadment of the legal representatives ol the respondent No.5 by arraying them as the respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the Writ Petition. l,earned counsel also submits that the responden[ No.5 passed away during the pendency of the Writ Petirion.

4. Upon considering the submissions and perusing the impugned order dated O9.O9.2O25, we are of the view that the appellant would not sufler any prcjudice by reason of the impugned order since the appellant has been given liberty to submit a fresh application before the respondent No.4/Tahsitdar. Hence, nothing prevents the appellant from raising his contentions before the respondent No.4/Tahsildar in a fresh application. Moreover, since the legal representatives of the respondent No.5 were not made parties to the Writ Petition, any change in the Succession Summary dateri OA-1O-2O21 would irrevocably impact thc legal represcntatives of the respondent No.5 considering the fact that the name of the respondent No.5 already appears in the Succession Summary as the beneliciary. 5. Hence, we deem it fit [o allow I.A.No.1 of 2025 thereby permitting the appellant/ pctitioner to bring the proposed 4 ---q rcspondent Nos.6 tolO on recorcl in the pr.csent lppeill as thc lcgal representatives of the deceased respondr.nt No.5. Thc rcspondent No.4/Tahsildar shall consider the ob cclions raised b' the appellant/ pe titioner, along with thc conr.r,Lrons of the lcgal representatives of the deceased responder.t No.5 before ptrssing a rr:asoned order within srx months fror r.r thc date oll tvhich the fresh application/objections arc recc ved frorn the ir ppellan t / pc.l it,oner. 6 I.A.No. j ctl 2O2S is allowed. W.A.No. I2I3 r | 2Oll5, alone \\'lth all connccred applicaLions, itre accorclingl-,,, Llrspose<l r>f.in tt:r-ms ol the altove. There shall bc no orcler as Lo c:)ri[s. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR /d V SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of ^ Telangana, Revenue Oepartme-nt. 2 The District Coilector. Mbnctreriai District, Mancheriat. J. r ne Kevenue urvrsronar oJfice, Mancheriar, Mancheriar c,istricl. 4 The Tahasitdar and Joint Sub n"gdiri lri;itpli'ianoar, Mancheriat District. 9n" 99 to SRI P.LAKSHMA.R.EDDY, Advocate [OPUC] rwo ccs to Gp FoR neveNuE, Hish.c"';;i;-,. il'; 5Lt., of retansana, at Hyderabad. [OUTi Two CD Copies r-\ A- u'/{ 5 6 7 PSK. PSK HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 COMMON JUDGMENT lA.No.1 OF 2025 IN/AND WA.No.1213 of 2025 1^' t or. ,t".l Irs lt \rv l6i f, t- (_'\ -t. a' \\ / I \ ) t \ ALLOWING THE IA AND DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 0 g \( 'Ll