HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.7911 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 23-03-2026 Between:

Mrs. Pendyala Saritha ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and eight (8) others.

... Respondents

ORDER :

Heard Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.4-34 guntas in Survey No.119 of Nemmikal Village, Atmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District, by virtue of registered gift deed bearing document No.948 of 2004 dated

27.03.2004. The name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue records and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971. That husband of respondent No.5 and father of respondent No.6, late Mr. Muralidhar, colluded with revenue authorities and mutated his name in revenue records in respect of the aforesaid land.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.60 of 2012 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and rectification of entries in revenue records in respect of the aforesaid land. The suit was decreed by the judgement dated 06.02.2025. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 preferred appeal in A.S. No.9 of 2025 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Suryapet, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S. No.60 of 2012 dated 06.02.2025. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated 15.11.2025.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed application bearing No.RC2500001712 dated 11.03.2025 for mutating her name in revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3-19 guntas in Survey No.119 of Nemmikal Village, pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S. No.60 of 2012 dated 06.02.2025. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected stating that “Court order not applicable to the applicant”.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned rejection order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without considering the judgment and decree in O.S. No.60 of 2012 dated 06.02.2025. The action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the application of the petitioner is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

6. The application of the petitioner was rejected by stating that “Court order not applicable to the applicant”. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 8 of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act 2025, respondent No.3 is competent authority for implementation of Court decree in O.S. No.60 of 2012 and the impugned order is passed without recording any reasons, in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. For the sole reason that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of respondent No.3. Consequently, respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the online application submitted by the petitioner bearing No.RC2500001712 dated 11.03.2025 for mutating her name in revenue records and for issuance of e-pattadar pass book in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3-19 guntas in Survey No.119 of Nemmikal Village, Atmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 to 9 and all other concerned/interested persons, by affording opportunity of hearing to them, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. As this order is passed without entering into the merits, notice to respondent Nos.5 to 9 is dispensed with. If respondent Nos.5 to 9 are in any way ag