HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18178 of 2025

ORDER

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 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 4th respondent in issuing the endorsement Letter No.B/214/2025 dated 21.05.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to mutate the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor pertaining to agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas situated in Sy.No.101/AA of Gondriyala Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, Suryapet District..…”

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.101/AA, situated at Gondriyala Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, Suryapet District, having acquired the same from his ancestors. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and the revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbook vide Patta No.1043, dated 12.11.2012 under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’). It is further stated that while issuing the e-pattadar passbooks under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short ‘Act, 2020’), the respondent authorities have recorded the name of respondent No.5 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.101/AA, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application vide No.2400091324, dated 03.09.2024 for data correction, but the said application was rejected by respondent No.4 on the ground that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records to the extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.101 only in the year 2013-14, and also stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Survey, Anantagiri have inspected the said land and found that the above extent in Sy.No.101 is only Ac.0.30 guntas and there are land disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of passbook in his favour. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of the relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once pattadar passbooks are issued, a presumption has to be drawn under Section 6 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘Act, 1971’), that the classification of the entries made in the revenue records correctly depicts the nature of the lands, and without conducting enquiry, the respondent authorities are not having any power to delete or amend the extent of the lands mentioned in the earlier pattadar passbooks.

5. A careful examination of the impugned endorsement dated 21.05.2025 issued by respondent No.4 reveals that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the records only in the year 2013-14, whereas it is the claim of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.101/AA, and in support of his claim, he has also enclosed the pattadar passbook issued in his favour. Thus, it appears that while issuing the impugned endorsement, the respondents have not applied their mind much less verified the pass book issued in favour of the petitioner to the extent of land Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.101/AA under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971, therefore, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly