SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 27537

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Smt. Guda Sharada – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 31211/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

WRIT PETITION No.31211 of 2024

Date: 02.12.2025

Between:

Smt.Guda Sharada

..Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department,

Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

and three others

..Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not mutating the petitioner name in the online revenue records including Dharani Portal and not issuing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in connection with the petitioner’s agricultural lands situated at Sy. No.49/2 to an extent of Acs.2.10 guntas situated at Pedapur Village, Veldanda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District which was purchased the late husband of the petitioner through registered sale deed vide document No.304 of 1990 without considering application of the petitioner filed through Meeseva vide Application No. 2400105191 dated

30.09.2024 and also without considering panchama conducted by the Tahsildar on 20.03.2021 wherein the petitioner is in possession of the property, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to mutate the petitioner name in the online revenue records including dhrani by issuing the Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds in the name of the petitioner…”

2. Heard Sri T.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner by name Guda Kotappa had purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.49/2 situated at Pedapur Village, Veldanda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, through registered sale deed bearing document No.304 of 1990 and he was issued pattadar passbook vide Patta No.137 under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner’s husband died on 08.08.2005 and the petitioner had succeeded to the said property. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, after the death of the petitioner’s husband, acting on the representations made by the petitioner, respondent No.4 inspected the subject land, conducted panchanama on 20.03.2021 and recommended to issue pattadar passbooks in her favour by mutating her name in the revenue records as she was in possession of the subject land. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner made application bearing No.2400105191, dated 30.09.2024 seeking for mutation of her name in the revenue records and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook in respect of the subject land under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short “the ROR Act, 2020”). The grievance of the petitioner is that, even after receipt of the said application the respondent authorities did not consider the same.

4. Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents would submit that the vendors of the petitioner’s husband are the possessors of the subject land and they are not the pattadars. He would further submit that the patta stands in the name of Sri Mandeguthala Nagappa and the names of one A.Govinda Chary, Mudavath Vasuram, Bady, Laskar SEvia, Shakru, Hanmiya, Chandu, Gopya, Hariya, Balya and Desia were recorded as possessors to the subject land. The vendors, who executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner’s husband, do not have any executable rights of the subject property and as such, the case of the petitioner was not c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top