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) 34937

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Smt Goda Alivelamma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 37059/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.37059 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 04.12.2025 Between:

Smt. Goda Alivelamma and others ...Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad,T.S and five others ...Respondents

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents entering the names of Respondent No.5 and 6 in revenue records by leaving the petitioners without proper enquiry in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 4-20 gts., in Suvery No.160/అ, Ac. 0-37 gts., in survey No.426/ అ, Ac.0-33 gts., in survey No.427/అ total admeasuring Ac. 6-10 gts., situated at Ghanapur Village and Mandal, wanaparthy District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India, consequently direct the official respondents to rectify the records by entering all the names of legal heirs in the revenue records in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 4-20 gts., in Suvery No.160/a, Ac. 0-37 gts., in survey No. 426/a, Ac.O-33 gts., in survey No. 427/a total admeasuring Ac. 6-10 gts.,situated at Ghanapur Village and Mandal, wanaparthy District and pass…”

2. Heard Sri K.Ramakotaiah, learned counsel representing Sri S.Janardhan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the father of the petitioners by name Pedda Venkataiah Goud and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the absolute owners and possessor of H.No.2-171 (2-107 old), situated at Ghanapuram Village, Wanaparthy District and agricultural land to an extent of Acs.4.20 guntas in Sy.No.160/అ, Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.426/అ, Ac.0.33 guntas in Sy.No.427/అ, total admeasuring Acs.6.10 guntas, situated at Ghanapuram Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District. The said Pedda Venkataiah Goud had died in the year 2014 intestate, without executing any testamentary documents. Taking advantage of the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 made an application to the revenue officials to mutate their names in the revenue records as legal heirs without including the names of the petitioners as legal heirs. The respondent-authorities without making any proper enquiry and without issuing any notices to the petitioners have recorded the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records as legal heirs, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners submitted representations dated 26.08.2025 and 30.06.2025 to the respondent-authorities to rectify the records by entering the names of the petitioners as legal heirs into the revenue records. But the respondent-authorities have not acted upon it.

4. Later, on 25.09.2025, the petitioners submitted representation to respondent No.4 seeking to provide a copy of mutation proceedings in respect of the subject property. Upon receiving the same, vide its letter No.L.No.RK/744/2025, dated 24.10.2025 respondent No.4 made an endorsement stating that there are no copies of proceedings available in the office. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the respondent-authorities, the petitioners preferred the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the mutation has taken place in the year 2018, since then the petitioners neither registered their grievance nor made any representation to the said affect and that itself is sufficient to infer that the petitioners do not have any right or title over the subject property.

6. He further submitted that the dispute between the

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