Gaddam Venkata Narayana Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of l|re Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct more particularly by way of wrrt, order or direction more particularly by way of writ of Mandamus drrecting the official Respondent No. 3 not to act up on the Application no. ROS0220032'l 3257 dated 31-10-2020 filed by the Respondent No. 5 under old Record of Rights Acl,2O2O for regularization of basing on forged and fabricated document sadabainama with regarding the agricultural land in Sy. No. 108/3 admeasuring Ac. 2- 20 gts, Sy. No 109/1 admeasuring Ac. 4-32 gts and Sy. No. 1 10/4 admeasuring Ac. 3-00 gts totally admeasuring Ac. 1O-12 gts patta land situated at varkala Village, chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District by Respondent No. 5 and to reiect application in view of new Bhu Bharathi (Record of Rights Act) Act 2025, Acl Nrr 'l12025 w.e.f. 04-01- 2025 and under GOMS No. 39 dated 14-04-2025, wlri ;h belonging to the petitioner. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir :umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma I be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 not to pass any orders on the Application no. ROS02200321 3257 dated 31-10-2020 filed by the Respor< ent No. 5 under Old Record of Rights Act, 2020 for regularization of forged an j fabricated document Sadabainama with regarding the agricultural land in Sy. lrc 108/3 admeasuring Ac. 2-20 gts, Sy. No. 109/1 admeasuring Ac. 4-32 gt:; and Sy. No. 1 10/4 admeasuring Ac. 3-00 gts totally admeasuring Ac. 10-12 gt:; ratta land situated at Varkala Village, Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District by R rspondenl No. 5 and to reject applicatron in view of Bhu Bharathi (Record of Rigl- s Act) Act 2025, Act No. '1i2025 w.e.f. 04-01-2025 and under GOMS No. 39 da r d 14-04-2025, which belonging to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ retition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH.LAXMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Ms. T.SWETCHA, \GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : - The Court made the following ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.38997 of 2025 Date: 18.12.2025 Be tween Gaddam Venkata Narayana Reddy AND petitioner I . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Departmen t, Secretariat, Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and lour others. ..respondents ORDER This Writ Petition is filed to direct the 3.a respondent not to act upon the application of the 5th respondent in Application No.ROS022OO32l3257 dated 3l-1O-2O2O under Old Record of Rights Act, 2O2O for rgularization of the agricultural land in Sy. No.108/3 admeasuring Ac.2.2O gts, Sy. No.1O9/1 admeasuring Ac.4.32 gts and ) trVV,l N.l'No.3E997 ol 2025 - Sy. No.1 10/4 admeasuring Ac.3.O0 gts totally admeasuring Ac. I 0.12 gts patta land situate I at Varkala village, Cl-rrntapallv Mandal, Nalgonda Distr i :t, ltased on forged and fabrit:ated document Sadabainarn:

2. Heard Sri Ch. Lakshmi Naraye na, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Srve: ,ha, learned Assistant Govenrment Pleadcr lor Revenue. e ppearing for the respor-rclent Nos. l to 4. Perused the ma[o ial available on record

3. Learncd coullsel for the petili )ncr u,ould submit that thc petitioner is the absolutt: owner and possessor ol the subject land and his ancestor i names are continuecl in the old ROR records and thzr. after their demise, he is having pattadar .1ss book No.T2B050 110199. The main grievance of tL e petitioner is that his ou'n brother, nho is the responder t No.5, l-ras made an application No.ROS022OO32 3257 for regularization of the subject land in his narr : based on the forged document. The petitioner h, i filed an application undcr Prajavzrni bcfore the resp I 'rdent No.3 J I:VV.J W P N().f8(r97 ()t l{)15 ol 28-06-2025 and also submitted a representation dated 01-12-2025 to reject the process of the application made by the 3.d respondent. Despite of this, the respondents did not respond to the representation of the petitioner. Further the respondents have issued endorsement on the application made by the 3.d respondent. Therefore, the petitioner 1S apprehending that if the respondent authorities have takcn action on the 5th respondent's application positively, it leads to against the interest of the petitioner and the rights of the petitioner over the subject land u,ould be defeated. Hence, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

4. Ms. T. Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, would submit that the petitioner has made objections to regularize the subject land pursuant to the application of the 5th respondent in ROS0220032 13257 dated 3l-lO-2O2O and on receipt of the said application, the respondent authorities have issued Endorsement in File No.Bla213 12025 dated 28-08-2025. Further, it is clearly stated in the said 1 EVV.J \\' t,. \o -13()97 of2025 - Endorsement that the case of the petitioner l,ies not been taken into consideration, as there exists a :ivi1 dispute between the parties and the proceedings r,r ating to the dispute ovcr the subject land are pendinl before the competent Civil Court. It is further clarifiec that further action r,l,ill be taken onlv in accordance u r -h the final orders passeci by the competent Civil Court. Ir spite of the same, the pctitioner, on a merc apprehensior rl hardship, whicl-r is n'ithout an1, legal basis, has ru s red to this Hon'ble Hrgh Court. Therefore, the present WL t Petition is u,holly misconceive d and is liabie to be dismi:;: e'd.

5. I{aving regard to the submissionr; of both the learned counsel and upon considering rl c material available on record, this Cor-rrt is of the vieu, hat it is an admitted fact tha1, Civil Cisputes are pendins retu,een the partics beforc the competcnt Civil Court. On, perusal of the Endorsement, it is clearlv evident that, s r ce the civil proceedings are pending, any further actior would be taken onh' after the final orders are pas : e d b,y the competent Civil Court. Hencc, thc a J prehension 5 EVV,J W.P.No.38997 of2025 expressed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs

7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Hvderabad. [OUT]

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 2 d;;-adi;dRlcH LAXNII NARAYANA, Advocate [oPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies To SA ( j I (J 1,i I ST.trrE 01 li t txt{ ?lJ[ q '..v. ...- j( ' :'\ \: - ,.-i ,x I -\\r'". ',):? HIGH COURT DATED:1811212025 ORDER WP.No.38997 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 6ll l&b