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) 37069

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Jadi Sattemma – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 35189/2025



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.35189 of 2025

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

“...to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim the petitioner for issuance of passbooks for the lands in survey No.614 extent Ac.0.28 Gts., and survey No.586/2 extent Ac.0.36 Gts., situated at Nennel village of Nennel Mandal, Mancherial District vide Proc.No.B2/0113/54/2023 dated 20.2.2025 by the respondent No.3 without considering the recommendations vide Proc.No. B2/0113/207/2022 dated 27.12.2022 and Proc.vide No. B2/0113/208/2022 dt.27.12.2022 and order passed by the Hon'ble court in WP No.20317/24 dated 30.7.2024 as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and further violation of the articles 14, 16, 300 A of constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to implement the order passed by respondent No.3 vide Proc.No B2/0113/207/2022 dated 27.12.2022 and Proc.No.Β2/0113/208/2022 dt.27.12.2022 and issue E pass books for the lands in survey No.614.extent Ac.0.28 Gts., and survey No.586/2 extent Ac.0.36 Gts., situated at Nennel village of Nennel Mandal, Mancherial District in pursuance of Bhu Bharathi application No.2500143551 dated 25.10.2025.....”

2. Heard Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy. Since the matter is disposed of today itself, notice on the 5th respondent is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Survey Nos. 614 (Ac.0.28 Gts.,) and 586 (Ac.5.17 Gts.,), Nennel Village, purchased under a registered sale deed vide Document No.1287 of 2008 dated 18.03.2008. Mutation proceedings were duly issued in his favour under Proceedings No.ROR/Nennel/69/2010 dated 26.11.2010 along with pattadar passbooks and title deed and he has remained in continuous possession, constructed a house and is paying property tax. Subsequently, one Jadi Pullaiah and others claimed rights under alleged ordinary sale deeds executed between 1962–1964 by a GPA holder, who had no authority to alienate the property. They were never in possession. Nevertheless, the then Sub-Collector, without jurisdiction and without notice, cancelled the petitioner’s mutation through Proceedings No.G/1973/2011 dated 30.08.2011. This Court, in W.P.No.27555 of 2011, set aside that order on 08.12.2015 and the petitioner’s mutation thus attained finality.

(a) Despite several applications, E-Passbooks were withheld.

Applications filed through the Dharani Portal on 27.05.2022 were falsely shown as “rejected,” though respondent No.3 had already approved them vide Proceedings Nos.B2/0113/207/2022 and B2/0113/208/2022 dated 27.12.2022, as revealed through an RTI enquiry. These orders were never implemented or communicated. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20317 of 2024, wherein this Court, by order dated 30.07.2024, directed consideration of his applications in light of the recommendations dated 27.12.2022. Instead, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 without notice, ignoring binding directions and wrongly alleging a civil dispute, despite the petitioner’s established possession and tax payment.

(b) After introduction of the Bhu Bharathi Act, the petitioner again applied for issuance of passbooks, but respondents refused to act unless the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 is set aside. The impugned action is arbitrary, illegal, violative of natural justice, contrary to the ROR Act and the orders of this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submi

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