The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci '( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mz1 be pleased to direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to permit respondent Nos. 5 to I to create any third- party interest, including alienation or encumbrance, in resp3 )t of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 3-26 guntas in Sy.No. 206 and Ac. () 3'1 guntas in Sy.No. 157, situated at lbrahimpur Village, Parigi IMandal, Vikarabzu District, Telangana State, forthwith and pending disposal of the above writ petitior Counsel for the Petitioners: Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDtI ' Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, , rGP APPEARING ON BEHALF OF GP FOR REVENUE SRI K. MUF ALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.35372 of 2o25 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : "...seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not cancelling the pattadar passbooks standing in the names of respondent Nos.5 to g, by rectifying the wrong entrics after conducting a proper revenue enquiry in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-26 guntas in Sy.No.2O6 and Ac.O 31 guntas in Sy.No.157, situated at Ibrahimpur village, Parigi Mandal, Vikarabad District, Telangana State, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of revenue iaw and against the principles of natural justice as well as unconstitutional. Consequently, to direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to rectify the wrongful and illegal entries made in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.S_1O guntas in Sy.No.206 and Ac.0-31 guntas in Sy.No. 157, situated at Ibrahimpur Village, Parigi Mandal, Vikarabad District, Telangana State and to mutate the names of the petitioners in place of respondent Nos.S to 8, duly considering the representation dated 3l-1O-2O25 submitted by the petitioner. .... "

2. Heard Sri Challa Srinivasa Re.ddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L.Ravrnder, learned Assistant Government pleader appearing on behalf o[ learned Government pieader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy. Since the matter has been disposed of today itself, the notice on the respondent Nos.5 to B is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the inaction cf rcspondent Nos.2 tc 4 in failing to cancel the illegally mutated patta, Page 2 of5 despite repeated requests for a proper revenue (.1 quiry, in respec[ o1' agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-26 guntas ilr i-v.No.206 and Ac.O- 31 guntas in Sy.No. 157 situated at Ibrahimpur vi lage, Parigi Mandal, District, which belongs Lo the petitiont:: .Vikarabad originally belonged to their great-grandfather, IiL 's family. The lands : Jadala Anthaiah, who owned Ac.3-26 Gts., in Sy.No.206, Ac.3-26 Gr ,., in Sy.No.208, Ac. 3-26 Gts., in Sy.No. 18O17 and Ac.0-3 1 Gts., in Sy I o. 157. These lands were equally distributed among his three sonsr. The share of the petitioner's grandfather, late Jadala Yellalah, conL ,riscd Ac.3-26 Gts., in Sy.No.2O6 and Ac.0-3 I Gts., in Sy.No. 157. 'th r petitioner's family has been in continuous, uninterrupted possessi rn, enjoyme nt and cultivation of the sard lands for over 60 vears. (a) The learned counsei for the petitioners r ubmits that certain individuals namely (i) Jadala Narasimulu, (ii) ,Jr lala Anthalah and (iii) Jadala Sayamma managed to secure illegal favour in collusion with revenue officials, withc rnutations in their ut lhe petitioner's knowledge, notice, consent or signatures. These e n tries are patently illegal and liable to be cancelled. Upon their denr se, the lands were further mutated in favour of their legal heirs, resp I rdent Nos.S, 7 and 8 by way of virasath and even at that stage, the evenue authorities failed to correct the erroneous entries. M;. Page 3 of5 (b) Upon discovering the illegai mutations, the petitioners approached respondent Nos.2 to 4 and furnished the complete history of the land along with supporting material. However, due to the political influence o[ respondent Nos.S to 8, who belong to the ruling party, the authorities failed to act and continued to perpetuate the illegal entries. Consequently, a detailed representation dated 31-1O- 2025 was submitted requesting cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of respondent Nos.S to 8 and rectil'ication of the revenue records after due enquiry. No action has been taken to date. (c) The revenue authorities are statutorily required to conduct a proper enquiry*, verify legal heir ship and issue notice to all concerned before mutating any pattadar name. The petitioners, being children of the original pattadar and being in continuous possession of the land, ought lo have been notihed. Mutation of the land in favour of third parties without enquiry, notice or jurisdiction is wholly illegal. Despite being aware of the petitioner's rights, the authorities coliuded with respondent Nos.S to 8 and illegally issued pattadar passbooks in their favour. (d) The respondent Nos.S to 8 are now attempting to create third-party interests over the subject lands, which would irreparably prejudice the petitioner's rights and lead to multiplicity of litigation. It is therefore just and necessary that respondent No.4 be restrained from \ permitting any alienation or encumbrance pendirt disposai of the writ petition. In view of the above circumstances, tllere exists a clear necessity for cancellation of the pattadar F. ssbooks issued to respondent Nos.S to 8 and for rectihcation of the revenue records in accordance with law.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistanr ( ;overnment Pleader, representing learned Govcrnment Pleader for Revc r .re, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as Lhe ances I -a1 properties were already partitioned long ago and the prcsent revcr ue entries standing in the names of respondent Nos.S to 8 reflect the lir ',lul outcome of that partition and subsequent virasath procecdings. Th: allegations of iilegal mutation and collusion are unsupported by any 'r aterral. It would be contended that the pattadar passbooks were issuec in accordance with procedure and that any challenge to title, successi: r or partition raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be: ljudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner's prc per remedy, if any, lies before the competent civil Court and therefor: the writ petition is iiable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the submissions an I thc material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the i,; ues raised by the petitioners regarding the alleged illegal mutations z nd the rival claims of the respondents that the property stood partitior:d long ago require Page 5 of5 a proper factuar de te rmination by the competent revenue authorities. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective claims, this Court directs respondent authorities to examine and consider the petitioner,s representatlon stric[ly in accordance wilh law, by conducting a comprehensive revenue enquiry, rssulng notices to all affected parties and affording them a full opportunity of being heard. The authorities shall thereafter pass a reasoned order, duly recording the factual findings and legal basis for their decision, as expeditiously as possible. 6 Accordingly, with the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs 7 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// *SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ./' G SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat,

2. The District Collector, Vikarabad District, At Vikarabad, Telangana State. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, at Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, Telangana State.

4. The Tahsildar, Parigi lt4andal, Vikarabad District, Telangana State. 5. One CC to Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY, Advocate tOPUCj 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies h- MP BS \ {IGH COURT DATE D:2011112025 --\-.. ii f;; iiilt .'.<' / \'i\ .r-. \* ORDER WP.No.i 5372 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WIF IT PETITION WITI. OUT COSTS \o *(eL (o\ {,t*