Jadi Sattemma v. 1. 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 declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim the petitioner for issuance of passbooks for the lands in survey No 614 extent Ac 0.28 gts and survey No. 586/2 extent Ac 0.36 gts situated at Nennel village of Nennel Mandal, Mancherial District vide Proc No 82/011315412023 dated 20.2.2025by lhe respondent No 3 without considering the recommendations vide Proc no B2tO113t2O7l2O22 daled 27.12.2022 and proc vide No 8210113120812022 dt 27.12.2022 and order passed by the Hon'ble court in WP NO. 20317124 dated 30.7.2024 as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and further violation of the article 14,16,300 A of constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to implement the order passed by respondent no 3 vide Proc no 8210113120712022 dated 27.12.2022 and proc No. 8.210113120812022 dt 27.12.2022 and issue E pass books for the lands in survey No 614 extent Ac 0.28 gts a rd survey No. 586/2 extent Ac 0.36 gts situated at Nennel village of Nennel [\Ianc i I Mancherial District in pursuance of Bhu Bharathi application No. 250014355'l d:1 >d 25.1O.2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the oi- Llmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( miL, be pleased to direct the respondents to issue E passbooks for the lands in sur,/ rll No 614 extent Ac 0.28 gts and survey No. 586 extent Ac 0.36 gts situateo at Nennel village of Nennel Mandal, lt'lancherial District by implementing tlr r orrjer passed by respondent no 3 vide Proc no 82101131207t2022, 82l0i13lZO il2o22 dt 27 12.2022 without referring Proc No 821011315412023 dated 20.2 2025 vhite considering the Bhu Bharathi applicatron No 250O143551 dated 25.1O.2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REt) )y Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGp FOR SRI K.MURALIDHAR REDDY, GP OR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.35189 of 2025 ORDER: Thc prescnt u,rit pclition is liled by the petitioncr r:rrder Arlicle 22(; of tlre Consrrtution ol lndia for the following reliel': "...to issue rvril order or direction more partlcularl_r. one in thc nature of \\ rit of mandamus declaring the action of the respondenls in rejectrng the claim the petitioner for issuance of passbooks lor the lands in sur\re)' No.6l4 extent Ac.O.28 Gts., and survey No.586/2 extent Ac.O.36 Gts., situated at Nennel village ol Nennel Mandal, Mancherial District Proc.No.82/0113154 12023 dated 20.2.2025 by the respondent No.3 u'ithout considering the recommendations vide proc.No. 82/Ol13l2O7/2022 dated 27.12.2022 and Proc.r,rde No. 82 lO113l2O8 12022 dt.27 t2.2022 and order passcd by rhe Hon'ble court in WP No.20317124 dated 30.7.2024 as arbitran, and illegal and rn violation of the principles of natural justice and further violation of the articles 14, 16, 300 A of constitution of India and consequen t lv set aside the same and direct Lhe respondents 2 Lo 1 to implemenl the order passed by rcspondent No.3 vide Proc.No 82lOl13l207 12022 dated 22.12.2022 and Proc.No 82lOl13l2O8 12022 dt.27.12.2022 and isslre E pass books for the lands in survey No.614.extent Ac.O.2B Gts., and survey No.586/2 extent Ac.O.36 Gts., situated at Nennel village of Nennel Mandal, Mancherial District in pursuance of Bhu Bharathi application No.250O 1 4355 1 dated 25. 10.2025....."

2. Hcard Sri Gucli Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petrtioners and Sri L.Ravinder, Iearned Assistant (iovernment Plcader appearing on behalf of learned Govcrnment pleader lor Revenue Sri K. Muralidhar Rcdd1,. Sincc the matter is disposed of today itself, notice olt the 5ft respondent is dispensed with. Pase 2 of 5

3. Thc learned counsel for the petitio;r .r. sr-rbmits that the pctitioncr is thc absolute o\\.ncr zrnd possessor oi lanrl rn Survcy Nos. 614 (Ac.O.28 (its..) and 58rr {Ac..j,17 Grs.,), Nclr I \/illage, purchaseci uncler a rcqisrcred srrle dcr:rl 'iclr: Docurnc,t N( . t2,S.Z of 2OOg clatecl 18.03.2O08. MuLatio. pr.ccedir-rgs *,cre cl,l' i :;uccl in his fa'our urrcler Procec<1ings No.RORlNenr-rcl/69/2O10 rlrr r cl 2ir. I 1 .2010 zrlong \4'ith pattadar passirooks ancl LiLIe decd zrnrl - h:r s rcmained rn contrnuous possession, constructed a house anrl r_ ltar ing propert-r, ta_x. subseqtrentlr', one ,lacli pulraial-r and others r rrir:rr:d rights ur-rdcr allcgcd ordinar.y salc cleeds exccutcd bctrveen j< 62-)964 b1r a GpA holder, u,ho had no au I horit) to alienate the proP,: t1,. .lhcy \\rcrc ncver in posscssior-t. Ncr,,crthelcss, the then S.rl -Collector, u,ithour jurisdiction a.d u'ithout notice, cancelled thc 1ctiti..er,s mutatiol.l through Procccclings No.ci/ rt)73/2oli rlared .l() i !i.2oil. 'I'his corrrt. in W.P.No.27555 of 2011, ser aside rhar ordcr t,t Ct8.l2.2OlS and ri-re petitioner's mLtration thus .rLtitiltcd finalirr,. (a) Dr:spite scveral applications, E-pass > ),lks were u,ithhcld. Applications lilcd through thc Dharani portal c n 2.1 .O5.2022 w,ere falsely shorvn as "rcjccted," though respondr r r No.3 had already vidc Proccedings approved thern Nos.B2l0 ) 1312O7 /2022 and 82lOll3/2OBl2022 dated 27.12.2022, as rev(,,, :d through an RTI enquiry. Thcse orders were ncver implemented .r r:or.municated. .rhc Page 3 ol5 pctitioner filed W.P.No.2O3 17 of 2024, u,herein this Court, by order dated 30.07.2024, directed considcratior.i ol his applications in light of thc recommcndations clateci 27. )2.'2O22 Instcad, respondent No.3 passed the impugnecl orrlcr ciared 20.O).2025 withoLtt noticc, ignoring binding directions and r.r.ronglv allcging a civil dispute, despitc thc petitioner's established possession and tax paymcnt. (b) Alt<:r introduction of thc Bhtr Bharzrtiri Act, thc petitioner again applied lor issnancc ol passbooks, lrut respondcnts relused to act unless the impugncd orde r datr:d 2A.O2.2025 is set aside. Thc impugned action is ari;rtran,, illegal. r,iolativc oI natural jusricc, cont.rary to the ROR Act :rnd thc orders o1- t his Court.

4. On thc other hand, Iearned Assistant Government pleader, rcpresenting lezrrned GovernmcllL Pleacier litr Revenuc, submits that the petitioner's claim cannot be.acceptccl as the title and possession over survey Nos.614 and 586 are decply disputcd. Trvo difle rent GpA holders purported to sell the samc lands, rcsulting in multiple rival transactions dating back to I962 64_ 'l'hr: revenue records, including Form-V[[, IB Register and Dharerni Pahanrcs, consistently reflect Smt. Madireddy Akkemma, not the petitioner, as the patladar. 'll-rc Form-VII register for the petitioner's allcged 2O 10 mutation is not traceable and her name nevcr appeared in an], pahani thcreafter. Field enquiry confirms that the petitioner is not in peaceful possession and J/ ---- Pagc 4 of5 proceeditlgs Llndcr Section 145 Cr.p.C. res, rrining her entr\, supprcsscd Lrl the petitioncr, arc pending. In corn r i.urcc u'itI-r thc Ilrgh Llourt's order., :rotir-c u.as issued, hearing u,as heir ind :rll records u r: rcr examined. Thc dispute is clearlr. civil in natur,. rrvolv ing c()mpeIinq tiLies ancl unvt:r-rfierl alienations and cannot be a,l r rliczrted in rnutatior-t proceedings. Ar:cordinglr,, the petitioner was rghtlv dirocted lo altproac:h th<. r:rvil Court and rc.jcr:tion of hcr appl r r tiorrs is 1:ru,lul and .jr,rstified. Stairrrrg rlrus, hc prays Lo dismiss Lhe p.-,: rnL rvrit pe t ition.

5. (Jpon r:or-r sid c r:rlio n of the pLeadings Iocumcnls atnd tllcr rnatcrial plaC.rL orr recorcl, it is r:r,ident th.rl th<' l r titront,r's c:larinr l.r rssuancc of prrt.tad:rr passbooks and mutation or" the lanci in surr.r,1 Nos.61.1 anci 1186 is untenable. The record disclos,,, multlple compelinq tr[rnsac(ions .xe<'rrtcd bv two differcnt GpA ho r r rs. r,xtcnsi'c ri'rl cl:rims dating bacl< to 1962 64 and existing mutal ( r'rs ir) fir\.olrr o[ th, t'l pilrties rr.hich arc rcllectcd in Form-VII, IB R.l:stcr :L.cl Dha*Liti P:rhanics Thc petitioncr's :rlleged mutation or'20 1 is not srrpportecl r^ zury vcrifiablc rcvcnue rc-cord, the relevant i r.-m VII rcgister is untrace.ble and tl-re petitioncr,s ^amc in any pahani lhercaftcr. Ficld enquiry further inr i .;rles absence of []re has neve1. rrpearc<i as pattadilr pctitioner's posscssion and subsisting proceedinE I uncler Section 145 Cr.P.C., which the pctitioner failed to disclose, :r:rrain hcr cntry inro the land. In complianco with the directions t[ this Court in / -----J P,rgc 5 of5 the land. In compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No. 20317 of 2024, notice r,",as issued, hearing rvas conducted and the matter s'as du1.r, reconsirlcred. 1'he dispute disclosed is clcarly civil in nature, involvir-rg drsputecl title ancl possessron, which cannot bc adjudicatcd in mutation proceedings undcr thc ROR Act. ln vieu,of the al;ove, no right is merde out lbr issuernce ol passbooks or mutation and thc petitioncr is at libcrtr to rt,ork oLrt thc remedics as available under lar,v.

6. Accordingl1,, thc \r,rit pctition is dismissed. No costs

7. As a sequel, Lhe misccllaneous petitions pendir-rg, il any, sl-rall stand closecl //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To 'l . One CC to SRI GUDI I\4ADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies PSK./BSK HIGH COURT DATED:2011112025 ORDER WP.No.35189 of 2025 o 1il s ( 'c l|]Zi c)\ * 5; r r';f . .-.o DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ..oq' @-