HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9728 of 2025

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in not issuing pattadar passbooks in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.03 guntas in Sy.Nos.190 and 191, situated at Chillapuram Village, Narayanapur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and issuing pattadar passbook in favour of respondent No.7 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently, prayed for other appropriate reliefs.

2. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner by name Parandha Yadaiah had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.01 guntas in Sy.No.190 and Ac.0.02 guntas in Sy.No.191, situated at Chillapur Village, Narayanapur Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District, through registered sale deed bearing document N.1920 f 2013, dated 22.04.2013. It is further stated that the vendor of the petitioner’s husband had purchased the said property through Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney No.1342 of 2010, dated 16.07.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, have entertained the sale deeds in favour of respondent No.7 and the name of respondent No.7 has been mutated in the revenue records.

3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondent is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any record to satisfy this Court that after purchasing the property through registered sale deed bearing document No.1920 of 2013, the name of the petitioner’s husband was mutated in the revenue records as per Section 4 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short the “ROR Act, 1971”) and the Rules made thereunder. It is apt to refer to Section 4 of the ROR Act, 1971, which reads as under:-

“Section 4 “ Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as, owner, pattadar of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Tahsildar within thirty days from the date of such acquisition. The Village Revenue Officer on noting the acquisition of rights in his jurisdiction shall intimate the Tahsildar within one (1) day as prescribed. The Tahsildar shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it.”

5. Section 4 of the ROR Act, 1971 specifically states that if any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as, owner, pattadar of a land has to make an application within thirty days from the date of such acquisition.

6. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“6: xxxx..... It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy

1(1992) 4 SCC 61

under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies,