Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13787
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Shegireddy Darma Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.16625 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Sri L.Ravinder
Authorities cannot amend final entries in land records after a considerable delay without a corresponding suit under the applicable law.
Headnote:The petitioner sought correction of entries in the revenue records under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, citing misinformation regarding land mutation in favor of a sibling. The Court found the application to be belated as it was filed after ten years of knowledge regarding the entries and concluded that the issues raised should be pursued through a comprehensive suit, dismissing the writ petition. The main issues framed by the court included whether the authority could rectify final entries after such a long time and the enforcement procedures under the ROR Act. The Court held that authorities lack power for corrections post-ten years, reinforcing the statutory procedures for rectifications. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and mutation of agricultural land. (Para 1) |
| 2. agreement to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage. (Para 2) |
| 3. delay in application limits corrective measures. (Para 3) |
ORDER
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.520A; Acs.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.521/A; Acs.2.09 guntas in Sy.No.522/A; Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.523/A, situated at Kodair Village and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, having acquired the same in a partition between the petitioner and respondent No.4, who is none other than his sibling. It is further stated that. thereafter, the names of the petitioner and respondent No.4 have been mutated in the revenue records in respect of their respective shares. It is further stated that the land to an extent of Acs.2.08 guntas in Sy.No.509 was wrongly mutated in the name of respondent No.4 and thereafter, 1-B record was issued in the name of respondent No.4 in the year 2015 vide proceedings, dated 14.04.2015 under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the ROR Act, 1971”). It is further stated that seeking rectification of the entries made in 1-B, dated 14.04.2015, the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 19.11.2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receipt of the said representation, the respondent authorities did not consider the same.
2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondent is dispensed with.
3. As seen from the record, prima facie, it appears that 1-B register which was prepared under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 is a final register so far as the entries in the revenue records are concerned. The petitioner filed an application seeking correction of the final register maintained under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder nearly after a period of ten years. The petitioner, having knowledge of the said entries for a period of ten years, is not entitled at this length of time to make any application seeking correction of the said entries and the respondent authorities do not have any power to carry out the corrections in the final register. If the respondent authorities have not followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 while mutating the name of respondent No.4, the petitioner can agitate his grievances by instituting a comprehensive suit before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Hence, this writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
