2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 24899
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Sri. Bureddipally Yadaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 35513/2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.35513 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer:-
“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners agricultural land in Sy.No.81/2/2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 guntas out of the extent of Ac.1.32 guntas, situated at Yenugonda Village, Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal and District under the guise of survey at the instance of Respondent No.5 inspite of order of this Honble Court in W.P. No.33453 of 2023 setting aside the mutation proceedings passed in favour of Respondent No.5 and pending suit in O.S.No.159 of 2024 and repeated representations, dated 13.10.2025 and 15.11.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and also against the provisions of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and against all settled principles of law and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere and not to dispossess from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner’s agricultural
land…”
2. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and with their consent, this Writ Petition is being taken up for
disposal 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.17 gts., in Sy.No.81/2/2, situated at Yenugonda Village, Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal and District and his name was incorporated in all the revenue records and the revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbook bearing No.T01160040636 vide Khata No.476 in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, in order to meet his personal and family necessities, out of the said extent, land to an extent of Ac.0.06 gts. was sold to one Purender Reddy through a registered sale deed bearing document No.7386 of 2009 and an extent of 1210 sq. yards to (Ac.0.16 gts.) to one Jogu Anjaneyulu through a registered sale deed bearing document No.8911 of 2013, dated 12.09.2013 and agreed to deliver the physical possession of the property only on payment of the balance amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, though the petitioner sold the above land, no physical delivery was given and no mutation was effected in favour of the vendees of the petitioner and the petitioner’s name is reflecting in the e-pattadar passbook as well as revenue records. Later, without granting any mutation proceedings in favour of respondent No.4 and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the revenue authorities had changed the name respondent No.4, without issuing any notice to the petitioner in respect of the above lands i.e., Ac.0.06 gts., and 1210 sq. yards (Ac.0.16 gts.) and when enquired, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.4 entered into an into a sale deed with the petitioner’s vendees viz., Purender Reddy vide sale deed bearing document No.6652 of 2017 and also Jogu Anjaneyulu through a registered sale deed bearing document No.13255 of 2016, dated 04.10.2016. It is further stated that mutation proceedings were issued in favour of Purender Reddy vide Proceedings No.C/ROR/1174/2014 and with regard to the same, the petitioner obtained information under RTI. Pursuant to which, respondent No.3-office had issued endorsement dated 14.092021, stating that the file in Proceedings No.C/ROR/1174/2014 relates to mutation of ration card of Mohammad Ajijulla and therefore, the said proceedings are fabricated and created in favour of Purender Reddy to obtain passbook. It is further stated that respondent