HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.20051 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.Ravinder, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Revenue, Sri H.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Dandi Shailaja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

2. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings No.E1/0607010006/559/PPBs-Court Cases/2025 dated 07.07.2025 of

3^rd respondent.

3. Vide the aforesaid proceedings dated 07.07.2024, 3^rd respondent ordered to implement the name of 5^th respondent in the revenue record/Bhu Bharati Portal in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.09 guntas out of Ac. 17.35 guntas in Sy.No.158, situated at Keesara Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal (for short, ‘the subject property’) and issuance of e-pattadar passbook in a Court Case Module. He has also directed to carry out necessary changes in Bhu Bharati Portal in respect of the subject property. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Vide order dated 11.07.2025, this Court granted status – quo to the extent of alienating the subject property till 15.07.2025. The same has been extended from time to time.

5. The petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 raised so many grounds to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2025 of 3^rd respondent. During the course of hearing, Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner that 3^rd respondent did not follow the procedure laid down under law, more particularly, the procedure laid down under Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short, ‘Bhu Bharati Act, 2025’). 3^rd respondent has fixed date of hearing on 03.07.2025 and informed the petitioner that he will close the case on the said date. The petitioner appeared before the 3^rd respondent and represented that land is not Inam land and ORC which is sought to be implemented by 5^th respondent is not valid. The petitioner requested the 3^rd respondent to issue notices to all the effected parties. 3^rd respondent did not consider the said aspect. 3^rd respondent passed impugned proceedings in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also the procedure laid down under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025.

6. In the light of the said submissions, vide order dated

12.08.2025, this Court, directed learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue, to produce original File in respect of the subject proceedings from 3^rd respondent. He has produced original File in respect of the impugned proceedings from 3^rd respondent.

7. Perusal of the said original file would reveal that 4^th respondent has prepared Note File dated 09.05.2025 stating that 5^th respondent has submitted online application vide Id.Rc.No.2400007424, dated 11.09.2024. seeking implementation of the ORC to record his name in the revenue record/Bhu Bharati Portal and issue e-pattadr passbook in respect of the subject property. ORC issued vide proceedings No.J/165/2007, dated 03.06.2008 in respect of the subject property. He has also submitted another application vide Id.No.06070100006, dated 08.05.2025 in Rythu Sadassu held at Keesara Village on 08.05.2025 with similar request.

8. On receipt of the said application, 4^th respondent has took up the same for enquiry, observed in the Note File that on verification of PT of Keesara Daira Village, Sy.No.158 to an extent of ac.17.32 guntas is recorded in the name of Tara Bai as pattedar and the tenants are K.andadi Venkaiah (grandfather of the petitioner herein) and Nukalagudem Papaiah and others. On verification of the orders of this Court in CRP No.2106 of 2017 would also reveal that 6^th respondent herein is the petitioner and 5^th respondent is the respondent. It is also further mentioned in the Note File that if agreed, a notice may be issued to the