THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.32289 of 2025

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records including Bhu Bharati Portal and not issuing pattadar passbook in his name pertaining to the land admeasuring Ac.0.15 guntas in Sy.No.216, situated at Naginenipalli Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri District (hereinafter referred to as “subject land”) and also rejecting the petitioner’s application bearing No.RC2500008967, dated 16.10.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to mutate his name in the revenue records in respect of the aforesaid land and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. Heard Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject land having acquired the same from Smt.Gowher Begum, through oral Hiba, dated 01.08.2022. When disputes arose, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit for declaration vide O.S.No.4811 of 2022 on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and during pendency of the suit, the parties have compromised the matter and the said suit was decreed on 13.12.2022 in terms of compromise. Basing on the said decree, the petitioner made an application bearing No.RC2500008967, dated 16.10.2025, seeking for mutation of his name in the revenue records including Bhu Bharati Portal and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said application was rejected without assigning any reasons.

4. Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the decree passed in the said suit is a compromise decree and the petitioner ought to have made application along with the relevant revenue records showing the names of pattadars subsisting as on the date of filing of the suit. He would further submit that the suit was decreed on

13.12.2022 as the limitation is not properly explained by the petitioner. He would however submit that the case of the petitioner is not rejected by the appropriate authority and he prays this Court to pass appropriate direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned order.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court has carefully examined the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the application submitted for mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records including Bhu Bharati Portal and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook in respect of the subject land. Except saying that the “Application of pattadar pass book- Court cases is rejected by Collector”, no valid reason whatsoever is assigned to enable the petitioner to take appropriate action. Since the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to re-examine the application bearing No.RC2500008967, dated 16.10.2025 submitted by the petitioner and if he is otherwise eligible, entitled and fulfiled all the requirements under the provisions of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025, consider the same keeping in view the subsisting revenue records and the aspect of limitation and if necessary, grant an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

6. With the above directions, t