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) 76263

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Shahenaz Sultana – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 33453/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

WRIT PETITION No.33453 of 2025

DATE OF ORDER: 23.12.2025

Between:

Shahenaz Sultana

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department,

Secretariat Buildings, and others

...Respondents

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 particularly in

the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents

to rectify the revenue records by mutating the name of the

petitioner for Ac.1-30 gts of land in Sy.No.381/B of

Nidigonda Village, Raghunathapally Mandal, Jangoan

District by declaring the mutation of the 6th respondent

##PAGE2##

Page 2 of 7

name in the revenue records for Ac.1-30 gts in

Sy.No.381/B of Nidigonda Village. Raghunathapally

Mandal, Jangoan District is without any basis as illegal

and arbitrary...…”

2. Heard Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent

Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the dispute involved in the present writ petition

is about the entries in the revenue records with regard to

Ac.1.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.381 after sub-division

381/B, situated at Nidigonda Village, Raghunathapally

Mandal, Jangoan District. Originally, Sri Vendantha Nara

Hari Swamy and others and Kistapati Narsi Reddy and

others were the pattedars and title holders of Ac.1.34 guntas

of land in Sy.No.381, Acs.2.25 guntas in Sy.No.604 and

Acs.2.06 gunas in Sy.No.613/B of Nidgunta Village. Later

on, these pattedars have sold their lands to one Devara

Narsamma through a simple sale deed executed on

29.10.1975 and 25.07.1964. These simple sale deeds were

##PAGE3##

Page 3 of 7

got regularized under Section 5-A ROR Act and issued forms

13(b) and 13(C) in Mandal Revenue Officer proceedings vide

Rc.No.917/94, dated 19.10.1995. After the said

regularization the said Devara Narsamma name is mutated

in the revenue records and issued pattedar passbook in her

favour.

4. As far as the title and possession of the said Devara

Narsamma for the lands to an extent of Ac.1.34 guntas in

Sy.Nos.381, Acs.2.25 guntas in Sy.No.604 and Acs.2.06

guntas in Sy.No.613/B, is not in dispute. While so, the

petitioner has purchased Ac.1.30 guntas in Sy.No.381 which

is later given sub-division No.381/B from the said Devara

Narsamma through registered sale deed on 20.03.2017 with

document No.758 of 2017 on the file of the learned Joint

Sub-Registrar, Ghanpur Station. After the purchase, the

petitioner applied to the Tahsildar Raghunathapalli under

Section 6A of ROR Act for mutation of her name in the

revenue records on 30.04.2017. Pursuant to the said

application of the petitioner, the Tahsildar followed due

##PAGE4##

Page 4 of 7

process and issued mutation proceedings in his proceedings

No.Rc.No.B/2603/2017, dated 26.10.2017. Pursuant to the

mutation proceedings, it is the duty of the revenue

authorities to take up follow-up activities changing the

revenue records and ultimately issue pattedar passbook. In

spite of the petitioner’s request for taking up follow up

activities, the revenue authorities dodging the same for the

reasons best known to them.

5. The revenue authorities instead of mutating the name

of the petitioner in the revenue record, contrary to the

mutation proceedings issued under Section 6A of ROR Act,

in collusion with respondent No.6, have mutated the name of

respondent No.6 in the revenue records and the said fact got

established by the information furnished in the Memo issued

by the Tahsildar under Right to Information Act on

26.09.2020. After receiving such information, the petitioner

filed Revision before the Special Tribunal on 02.02.2021.

The said revision is closed due to new act is promulgated i.e.,

Bhu Bharati Act, 2025. Meanwhile, the Act under which

##PAGE5##

Page 5 of 7

revision is filed i.e., the

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