IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:11.02.2026 Between:

Sushila and another.

…Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and five others. …Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the order dated 04.07.2020 passed by respondent No.3 in Appeal No.D/918/2016, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Rules and without jurisdiction, and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Chinnola Naresh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Gorrenka Narsing Rao; that Gorrenka Narsing Rao was owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.09 ½ guntas in Sy.No.2/E of Vishwanathpet Shivar, Nirmal Mandal; that her husband expired on 02.06.2011 leaving behind petitioner No.1 as his legal heir; that respondent No.5 claiming to be second wife of Gorrenka Narsing Rao has entered into settlement with petitioner No.1 and the same was reduced into writing as ‘Mutual Consent Agreement’ dated 08.10.2012, as per which, respondent No.5 agreed to receive a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as final settlement and further, declared that she has no right over the subject property; that respondent No.5 has also executed self-declaration dated 08.10.2012 as well as No Objection Declaration to the effect that she has no issues with petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 is entitled to take all the pensionary benefits, etc., of Gorrenka Narsing Rao; that a sworn statement of respondent No.5 was recorded by V.R.O. on 11.10.2012 to the above effect.

3.1. It is further averred that petitioner No.1 filed an application for succession in respect of the subject property and respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.Ro/64/09/12/VISHA, dated 15.10.2012, granted Virasat in favour of petitioner No.1 in terms of Rule 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the ROR Act’) and accordingly, the name of petitioner No.1 was mutated in the revenue records; that challenging the said proceedings of respondent No.4, respondent No.5 preferred appeal vide No.D/918/2016 before respondent No.3; that during the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.5 expired and respondent No.6 who claimed to be her adopted son was brought on record as her legal representative; and that respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 04.07.2020 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No.4 and directed respondent No.4 to update the revenue records in the name of respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, further submitted that petitioner No.1 has alienated the subject property in favour of petitioner No.2 through a registered sale deed. He further submitted that respondent No.3 exceeded her jurisdiction in holding that the sale deed executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 is not binding on respondent No.5, without considering the settled legal position that the said power is exclusive domain of competent civil Court. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has given much credence to the order passed in Maintenance Case, vide MC.No.54 of 1995, filed by respondent No.5 against Gorrenka Narsing Rao, whereunder, respondent No.5 was granted maintenance with an observation that she is the legally wedded wife of Gorrenka Narsing Rao. He further submitted that though petitioner No.1 has disputed the adoption of respondent No.6 by respondent No.5 as well as execution of Will dated 11.04.2018 by respondent No.5 in favour of respondent No.6, respondent No.3, without considering the said objection and further in th