Rathlavath Gamli v. 1. The State of Telangana

2. The District Collector, Wanaparthy District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District. 4. The Tahsildar, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparthy District. 5. Sri. Mudavath Balu, S/o. Bichya, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. Rekulapally Thanda, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

6. Sri. Kethavath Parshuram, S/o. Kethavath Kurmaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Rekulapally Thanda, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparthy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action on the Revenue Sadassu application dated 11.06.2025 and representations dated 08.10.2025, 10.10.2025, 11.11.2025 and 10.11.2025, for mutation and inclusion of missing extent of Ac.0-10 Gts., in Sy.No. 149/E, ,/ -/ situated at Rekulapally Village, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparthy District, in favour of the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation o' Article 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondents I forthwith on the Revenue Sadassu application dat,: to 4 to take action I 11.06.2025 and representations dated 08.10.2025, 10.10.2025, 11..11.2021 and 10.11.2025. for mutation and inclusion of missing extent of Ac.0-10 Gts , in Sy.No. 149/E, situated at Rekulapally Village, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparth,l District, in favour of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4lo take action forthwith on trr Revenue sadassu application dated 'l 1 06.2025 and representations dated OB.1).2025, 10.10.2025,

11.11.2025 and 10.11.2025, for mutation and inclusion of mrsing extent of Ac.0- 10 Gts., in Sy.No. '1491E, situated at Rekulapally Villag e, yedula tMandal, Wanaparthy District, in favour of the petitioner, pending r isposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, I Gp APPEARING ON BEHALF OF GP FOR REVENUE SRI K. MURALIDII AR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.5 & 6: - The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3525L of 2o25 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of tl:ie Constitution of India for the following relief : ". . . to issue a writ, order or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action on the Revenue Sadassu application dated 11.06.2025 and representations dated O8.LO.2025, 10. I0.2025, ll.ll.2025 and 1O.11.2025, for mutation and inclusion of missing extenl of Ac.0- 1O Gts., in Sy.No. 149 lE, situated at Rekulapally Village, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparthy District, in favour of the petirioner as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 Lo Lake action forthwith on the Revenue Sadassu application dated 11.06.2025 and representations dated 08.lO.2O2S, 10. 10.2025, ll.Il.2025 and 10.11.2025, for mutation and inclusion of missing extent of Ac.O-10 Gts., in Sy.No. 149 lE, situated at Rekulapally Village, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparthy District, in lavour of the petitioncr and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case....."

2. Heard Sri N.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government pleader appearing on behaif of learned Governmcnt pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy. Since the matter is disposed of today itself, the notice to respondent Nos.S and 6 is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pctitioner is the sole and absolute owner of agricultural land in Sy.No. 149/E, admeasuring Ac.1-2O guntas, situated at Rekulapally I Page 2 of5 Village, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparthy District. The petitioner acquired the said land under a registered sale deed bearing locument No.588 of 1997, dated 23.04.1997, registered ar SRO, Koltr becn in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupt pur and has sincc ,d possession and enjoyment of the entire extent. The petitioner,s nr rther had originally acquired the total extent of Ac. l-20 guntas rr Sv.No.149 under document No.742 of 1986, dated O 1.07. 19gb Ac.O-3O gts.) and documcnt No.1912 of 1989, dared 11.09.1989 (A: 0-30 gts.), prior to in favour of the pet 1 oner. pursuant to executing the above deed Document No.58B of 1997, the petitioner's name .zas mutated in Lhe revenue records. However, only Ac.1- 10 guntr.l was erroneously recorded and the corresponding pattedar passbool: and title deed were issued for the reduced extent, vide passbook No.'O307O0 105 13 and khata No.808. Upon enquiry with the 4ft respor:< ent. the petitioncr came to knorv that the remaining Ac.O- 10 gun ,i s was mistakenly entered in the pattedar passbooks of respondents > and 6, who own Iands in Sy.No.149/AA and Sy.No. 149 lAl respectir.: 5,. (a) It is submitted that despite this cler cal omission, the petilioner continues to be in actual possession o1 rhe entire Ac. 1-20 guntas, including the omitted Ac.o- 10 guntas. The P :titioner submitted an application through the revenue sadassu on I t.06.2O25 seeking correction of the revenue records. As no action followed, r' 7 Page 3 ol-5 representations were addressed to the 2nd respondent on 08.10.2025 and 10.10.2025, to the 3.d respondent on 11.11.2025 and to the 4d respondent on 1 0. 1 I .2025. No steps having been taken, the petitioner is constrarned to approach this Court.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions dated

20.11.2025, submitted by the Tahsildar, Yedula Mandal, submits that the petilioner's claim for an additional land admeasuring Ac.O.l0 guntas in Sy.No. 149 is untenable on both facts and law. The revenue record, old pahani entries and Bhubarathi data consistently demonstrate that the total extent of Sy.No.149 is only Ac.5.23 Gts., and that the petitioner's vendors themselves held only Ac.l.10 Gts., at the time o[ the alleged purchase. Accordingly, her name was validly mulated for Ac.1.10 Gts., in 1998 and a Dharani pattadar passbook was again issued in 20i8 for the same extent, thereby confirming the correctncss of the earlier mutation. Upon verihcation by the present authorities after bifurcation of the mandal, it is evident that the entirety of Sy.No. I49 stands accounted for in the names of three pattadars and no balance extent exists. The petitioner's plea of an "omitted,, Ac.o.l0 Gts., is therefore unsupported by any revenue record and amounts to a dispyrted claim of title that cannot be entertained in rvrit jurisdiction. As the competent revenue authority has already rejected her request for I I Paee 4 oi 5 want of any available land in Sy.No. 149, the writ )ctition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the admission s .; ge itself.

5. Having regard to the submissions reade and ',r.ithout expresslng any oprnion on lhe merits of the riv t claims or on the petitioner's entillement to any extent of land in Sy. r r.149, this Court is of the considered view that the grievalce of the I ( titioner pertains to correction of revenue entries, rrvhich squarely falls ,r ithin the domain of the competent revcnuc authorities. Accordingly, l-re writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the ofhcial respond( I ts, particularly the 2nd and 4m respondents, to consider and dispos: of the petitioner's representations dated 08.1O.2025, 10.1O.2O2r, lO.ll.2025 and

11.11.2025 strictly in accordance with law, ,v undertaking a comprehensive verification of all relevant revl1ue records. The respondents shali, belorc taiking any decision, duiv issue notices to all affected parties including respondents 5 and 6, af{i r I them an effective opportunity of submitting their objections and o being heard and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accorcii,: tce with law as expeditiously as possible. It is clarified that t r s Court has not adjudicated upon the petitioner's title or possessior over the disputed extent and all issues are Ieft open to be decicleri by the competent authority.

6. With the above direction, the present writ petition IS disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs 7 . As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' State of Telangana' SecretariatBuildings,Hyderabad. : 2. The District Collector, Wanaparthy District' 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District' 4. The Tahsildar, Yedula Mandal, Wanaparthy District' 5. One CC to SRI N. JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies MP HIGH COURT DATItD:2011112025 .iATE 39 /l $[ ..t I ).,) ) 1 tor:s;F^ * .(\ .<':,1 na i.)r:, ORDER WP.No. )5251 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE \^'RIT PETITION WII- {OUT COSTS \? { 'l