The court emphasized the requirement for authorities to properly consider and rectify land records as mandated by law after appropriate hearings.

ORDER

Heard Sri B.Kumara Swamy, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr.N.Uma Shankar, learned Standing Counsel for Agriculture Market Committee, appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 and Sri Puttal Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 Municipality. Perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the General Power of Attorney Holder of legal heirs of the protected tenant in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.08 gutnas in Sy.No.104/AA, situated in Pallabuzuru Village, Narayanapet Mandal and District. The original landlords are in possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly their names were entered into the pattadar books by virtue of succession and accordingly 38-E certificate under the provisions of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was issued by respondent no.4- Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet vide fine No.B/5005/75/2 and the original owners are in cultivation of the said land from 1954-55 onwards. The legal heirs of the original protect tenant have also been in enjoyment of the possession of the property by virtue of succession and their names have been duly reflected in the old ROR records and as well as in the new ROR, as well as in the Pahanies and their names have been entered into the pattadar passbooks.

3. It is further submitted that when the petitioner and other 38E holders obtained the revenue records in the year 2019, then only they came to know that their names were deleted in the revenue records in possessor and pattadar columns and the lands are reflecting as Government land/Sarkari, without any proceedings. Aggrieved by the action of official respondents, the petitioner along with 38E certificate holders made a representation before respondent No.3 on 05.11.2019, though it is acknowledged, the said revenue records have not been rectified. Thereafter, the petitioner made online application vide application No.2500005855, dated 30.01.2025 (new Bhu Bharati petition No.BR2500000371) for issuance of passbook and mutation of names in revenue records. But, so far no action has been taken by the respondent despite the enquiry has been conducted by the Revenue Inspector on 18.08.2025 and filed report to the respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to pass direction to the respondent authorities.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that respondent authorities will consider the representations in accordance with law.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that respondent No.6 is only formal party.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.7 would submit that the land in question has been allocated to respondent No.7 Agriculture Market Committee, Narayanpet and necessary construction is under progress.

Hence, he would seek to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel and after examination of the material placed, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to consider the application filed by the petitioner on 31.01.2025 and examine the same by issuing necessary notices to all the interested parties and by granting opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, the parties to this writ petition are directed to maintain Status- Quo obtaining as on today in respect of the subject property in all