2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 76370
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
D.Rama Swamy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 3042/2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3042 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-
“…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Endorsement vide Ref.No.D1/751/2019, dated 06.04.2022 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to the evidence on record apart from violation of the orders dated 30.11.2021 passed in W.P. No.31239 of 2021 and further also without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to enter the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor in the revenue records pertaining to land of an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.1048 Sy.No.965 in an extent of Ac.1.12 guntas and Sy.No.968C in an extent of Ac.0.17½ guntas situated at Kondapalkala Village, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District…”
2. Heard Sri D.Rama Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in Sy.No.1048, to an extent of Ac.1.12 gutnas in Sy./No.965 and Ac.0.17 ½ guntas in Sy.No.968, situated at Kondapalkala Village, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District (hereinafter referred as ‘subject property’) and the said property is inherited from his father. Since then, he is possession and enjoyment of the same and cultivating the subject land.
4. He would submit that Devalla Mallaiah filed a suit in O.S.No.422 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar against the petitioner and others for perpetual injunction, in which the petitioner is arrayed as defendant No.2. Due to non-prosecution of the case the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for default on 28.11.2016.
5. He would further submit that on 11.03.2019, the petitioner made an application before respondent No.2 for mutation of his name in the revenue records by taking into consideration of the order dated 28.11.2016 in O.S. No.422 of 2010. But, no action has been taken by the respondents. He would further submit that challenging the proceedings issued by respondent No.4, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.31239 of 2021 before this Court. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court had directed the respondent No.3 - Tahsildar therein to take necessary action for entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue records with respect to the subject land, pursuant to the letter dated 18.04.2019 addressed to the petitioner by respondent No.2 for implementation of the decree dated 28.11.2016 in O.S.No.422 of 2010 passed in favour of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In compliance to the order passed by this Court, respondent No.4 issued proceedings vide Ref.No.D1/751/2019, dated 06.04.2022, where the claim of the petitioner has not been considered by respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the respondent authorities.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the District Collector – respondent No.2 rightly issued endorsement Ref.No.D1/751/2019, dated 06.04.2022 stating that as informed by the Revenue Divisional Officer- Karimnagar and Tahsildar, Manakondur Mandal, Davalla Mallaiah (plaintiff) (who died) has filed a suit O.S.No.422 of 2010 against the petitioner and others for perpetual injunction before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in respect of the subject land. In the said suit, no specific orders in favour of the petitioner and two others by the learned trial Court except dismissing the suit. As such, it is not possible to co