The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents and more particularly the Respondent No. 3 herein for not acting upon the representations dated 1810612025 addressed by the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Section 5(5) and Section 5(7) of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2O24 and as well as Article 226 of Constitution of lndia And seeking the immediate and consequential amendment of the Record of Rights and issuance of an updated Pattadar Passbook-cum-Title Deed with respect to the land admeasuring Ac. 1-23 gts forming part of Sy. No. 263131111 ir, Bommalaramaram Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District (hereinafter referred as subject property). lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order directing the Respondent No. 3, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, to f:orthwith adjudicate and dispose of the Petitioners Bhu Bharati application trro.30070190016 DATED 18.06.2020 by passing a reasoned, speaking order within a strict time frame, not exceeding four weeks from the date of the order of this Honourable Court. Counsel for Ure Petitioner: SRI K. RAGHAVA RAMANA Counsel for th,e Respondents: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.3811O of 2o.25, Date: 1 1. 12.2025 Between: Marri Maisi Reddy AND petitioner

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 6 others. ...respondents ORDER This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents, particularly the respondent No.3, in not acting upon the petitioner's representation dated 18-06-2025 requesting to issue the updated pattadar pass book-cum-title deed in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.L.23 gts in Sy. No.263/ 3 / I / I situated at Bommalaramaram village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District, as illegal and arbitrary. _--/ a 2 EVV.J W.P.No.38ll0 of 2025 t2. Heard Sri K. Raghava Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the: respondents. Perused the material available on record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land to an ext(--nt of Ac. L.23 gts and the said ownership was also established and verified by the 4th respondent by his proceedings No. D / 62 3 / 2O2O dated 2O-O8-2O2O , but however, the petitioner discovered that the 4th responrlent had deliberately suppressed the execution of his own final order and failed to mutate the land as mandated. Consequently, the pattadar pass book continued to display the grossly deficient extent of O.O8'/z gts, and this entry stands in stark and irrefutable contrast to the petitioner's actual and legally established ownership of Ac. 1.23 gts. J EVV,J W.P.No.38l l0 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has filed an application through Bhu Bharati portal vide application No.3OO7019OO 16 dated L8-O6-2O25 before the 3'd respondent and sought for correction of the entries in the pattadar pass book regarding the extent of land, specifically addressing the missing extent of Ac. 1 .14Y2 gts out of Ac.L.23 gts. Surprisingly, the 4th respondent, instead of 3'd respondent, issued a formal notice for hearing under Section 2 (04) of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for brevity the Act, 2O25'l to the petitioner and various third parties including one Singireddy Laxmareddy

5. He further submits that according to the proceedings dated 2O-O8-2O2O issued by the 4th respondent, it is made clear that the disputed extent of land i.e. Ac. 1.08 gts was merged with the sale deed submitted by Singireddy Lakshma Reddy Ramreddy, 4 EVV,J W.P.No.38ll0 of 2025 S/o. Chandra Reddy and the same was found that it was the second document. Hence, in Sy. No.263, RSR was recorded more extent of Ac. 1.08 gts Theret,:re, in Sy. No.263, the excess extent of land i.e. Ac. 1.013 gts was removed from the land of Singireddy Lakshrna Reddy Ram Reddy and the total area of Ac.O2.1)3 gts was registered online in the name of the petitioner.

6. He further submits that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the application of the petitioner has not been considered by the 3.d responclent and therefore sought for a direction to the

3.d respondent to pass appropriate orders on petitionr-'r's application so as to enable the petitioner to get ttre consequential amendment of the Record of Rights and issuance of an updated pattadar pass book-cu:m-title deed in respect of the subject land. 7 . On the other hand, learned Assistant Governrrrent Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 5 EVV,J W.P.No.3tl I l0 of 2025 respondents, while admitting the receipt of the petitioner's application regarding correction of extent of land and missing survey number etc., contended that when 3.d respondent has taken up the application of the petitioner for consideration, the case of the petitioner has been recommended for rejection by the 4th respondent vide his letter dated I5-O7 -2024. He further contended that in the light of the above circumstances, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in detail by the respondent authorities, based on the application of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law by causing necessary enqu1ry on issuing notices to all the parties, if necessary,. by affording the opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders.

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, and without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate 6 EVV.J W.P.No.38 I l0 o12025 to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing respondent No.3 to examine the petitioner's application No.3O070 1900 16 dated 18-06-2025. Respondent No.3 shall ::ssue notices to all interested/third parties and afford them sufficient opportunity of personal hearing. Respondent No.3 may also conduct a thorough enquiry and oL'tain necessary information from third parties, if require'd, and shall thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's application strictly in acccrdance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as; to costs.

9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To,

1. The Princilcal.secretary, Department of Revenue, state of relangana, Secretaria't, HYderabad.

2. The District Collector, Yadadri-Bhongiri District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir Division. Yadadri-Bhongiri District I $/

4. The Tahsildar, BommalaRamaram Mandal, Yadadri-BhongiriDistrict 5. One CC to SRI K. RAGHAVA RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE , High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] I /

7. Two CD Copies DAN BS HIGH COURT DATED:1111212025 1 \ ORDER WP.No.38110 of 2025 3 0g rr8 2020 Z (,) * J. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION 3 COSTS a\ d. "J,