THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

WRIT PETITION No.23316 of 2025

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide No.E3/4262/2024 dated 23.04.2025 as illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 21 of the Constitution and consequently to set aside the same. Further, direct issuance of the pattadar passbooks in the name of the petitioner for Sy.Nos.462 (Ac.1.01 gts) and 462, 463 (Ac.2.25 gts), currently in the names of

petitioner’s family members.

2. Heard Sri KRK Gargeya, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue

Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.E3/4262/2024, dated 23.04.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the revenue records and was passed without proper appreciation of evidence and in disregard of the proceedings No.B/3789/2018, dated 05.06.2018,

wherein the petitioner’s name was duly mutated as pattadar. It is further submitted that the Tahsildar’s report, relied upon by the 2^nd respondent, is self-contradictory and inconsistent with the long- standing revenue entries showing the petitioner’s family as pattadars. The petitioner asserts that the finding regarding non-possession is erroneous, as the petitioner and his predecessors have been in lawful possession of the subject lands. It is also contended that the impugned order was passed without compliance of due procedure and in contravention of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.11076 of

2024.

(a) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application filed by the petitioner for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks in respect of Survey Nos.462, 463 and 465 admeasuring Ac.15.30 gts., at Chintapally Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District was dismissed mechanically, without examining the relevant documents and past proceedings. The Tahsildar’s report, relied upon by the 2nd respondent, is contrary to the records and his own earlier order vide proceedings No.B/3789/2018 dated 05.06.2018, whereby the petitioner’s name was duly mutated as pattadar following the death of his father, Dhanavath Pedda Janiya. The conclusion that the petitioner is not in possession is thus baseless and contrary to the long-standing entries in revenue records from 1950 onwards showing the names of the petitioner’s family members as pattadars. The Tahsildar conducted a biased and irregular survey, not in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Survey Act and submitted a report inconsistent with the existing records and his own earlier findings. The impugned order, based upon such a defective and self-contradictory report, cannot be sustained. The impugned order further ignores the directions of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.11076 of 2024 to consider the petitioner’s online application No.2200089980 dated 11.08.2022 for issuance of pattadar passbooks in respect of Survey Nos.462 to 465.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that despite receipt of notice, the petitioner remained absent during the proceedings conducted by the 2^nd respondent and further failed to establish his case by filing any supporting documents. He further submits that upon verification of the records relating to Sy.Nos.462, 463 and 465, admeasuring Ac.15.30 gts., at Chintapally Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, it was found that the pahanies for the years 1962-1663 to 2013-2014 do not reflect the name of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the subject land has not been under cultivation and has remained fallow for the past 30 years.

Therefore, the present petition is f