THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“…pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 13.06.2025 in Case No.Rev/D1/ROR/0002/2025, passed by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order dt. 13.06.2025 in Case No.Rev/D1/ROR/

0002/2025, passed by the 3rd respondent …”

2. It is stated that the petitioner had purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.75 and its sub-divisions, situated at Oblaipally Village, Mahabubnagar Rural Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, through registered sale deed bearing document No.435 of 2022, dated 16.04.2022. It is further stated that basing on the said sale deed, the name of the petitioner was mutated in all the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued in her favour and in Dharani Portal also her name was depicted. It is further stated that respondent No.4 instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property vide O.S.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 07.05.2015 and final decree was

also passed on 30.11.2021. Basing on the said final decree, respondent No.4 made an application before the District Collector seeking for issuance of pattadar passbook and the same was rejected vide proceedings No.D1/11/2021-Court Case, dated 02.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 herein filed W.P.No.35748 of 2024 before this Court and this Court vide order, dated 19.12.2024 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to examine the application submitted by the petitioner therein seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records, after issuing notice to the persons, who are affected by the said implementation, strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Oficer, Serilingampally Mandal and others¹. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 without following the guidelines issued by the Full bench of this Court and without examining the revenue records in proper perspective erroneously came to a conclusion that respondent No.4 is entitled for mutation and consequently issued pattadar passbooks and passed the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition.

AIR 2008 AP 15

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Additional 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.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short “the Act 9 of 2020”) has been repealed and replaced with Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short, ‘the Act 1 of 2025’) wherein the petitioner is having remedy to file appeal on the file of Chief Commissioner Land Administration, aggrieved by the orders of the Additional Collector (Revenue).

5. In reply, Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the Additional Collector (Revenue) has passed order as Revisional authority under the provisions of the Act 9 of 2020 and no further revision has been provided under the Act 1 of 2025, and the procedure as contemplated under the Act 1 of 2025 is only applicable to the proceedings emanated from the provisions of the Act 1 of 2025, therefore, the writ petition filed before this Court is maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

6. This Court has carefully examined the orders passed by the Additional Collector (Revenue) in Case No.Rev/D1/ROR/ 0002/2025, dated 13.06.2025. Even thou