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) 50716

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
Palakurthy Mogili – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 18343/2025



HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for following relief:

“....to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondents in not rectifying the revenue records by showing Sy.No.375 to an extent of Ac.2.1000 guntas, in Sy. No. 375, instead of Sy. No. 373/A/2, in respect of the lands belonging to the 1st petitioner herein and an extent Ac.1.3000 in Sy. No. 375, instead of Sy No. 373/A/1, belonging to the 2nd petitioner, Ambala Village, Kamalapur Mandal Hanumakonda District, in pursuance of the Survey Report in R.C. No.A5/113/2024 of the 4th respondent, as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 21 nd 300-A of the Constitution of India and the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of ghts in Land) Act, 2024 and consequentially to direct the respondents to rectify Revenue Records forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case....”

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

3. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.373/A/2 to an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas and 2nd petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.373/A/1 to an extent of Ac.2.10 guntas, situated at Ambala Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Hanumakonda District. It is further stated that the said extents have been recently mentioned as part of Survey No.375, instead of Sy.No.373/A/2 and Sy.No.373/A/1 respectively, which constrained the petitioners to submit application for conducting survey of subject lands. It is further stated that acting upon the said application, the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Hanumakonda vide proceedings in Rc.No.A5/113/2024, dated 24.06.2025 conducted survey and issued Panchanama Report showing that the subject lands form part of Survey No.373 sub division numbers instead of Sy.No.375.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that soon after conducting of survey, he made an application for rectification and amendment of Record of Rights and issuance of Passbooks in his favour, but so far no action has been taken thereon.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that even though the petitioner made a representation/application seeking rectification and amendment of revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds, the same has not been considered by the respondent authorities, as the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 has been repealed and replaced with Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short “the Act 1 of 2025”) and unless an application is submitted under the prescribed format in Bhu Bharathi Portal, the petitioner will not be in a position to obtain rectified pattadar passbook.

5. In view of the above submissions, the petitioner is permitted to make an application in the prescribed format in Bhu Bharati Web Portal for rectification of revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks for the extent the petitioner is entitled and on filing such application, the respondent authorities shall examine the same taking into consideration of the survey being conducted by the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Hanumakonda vide proceedings in Rc.No.A5/113/2024, dated 24.06.2025. In any event, if the application of the petitioner does not fulfill the requirements of the Act 1 of 2025 and the Rules made thereunder, the respondent authorities shall pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of ei

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