IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:15.04.2026 Between:

Poreddy Nagabhushanam …Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Cherial Mandal, Siddipet District and others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders dated 08.07.2017, vide proceedings No.B/3513/2017, of respondent No.1, mutating the name of respondent No.6 in the revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.313/A and 313/E of Cherial Village and Mandal, Siddipet District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and in spite of pendency of the suit in O.S.No.127/2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon and rejection of the application, vide Memo, dated 19.06.2015, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri B.Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Though, Sri Ananthula Ravinder, advocate, entered appearance, for respondent No.6, none appeared on his behalf.

3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that lands admeasuring Acs.6.01 gts in Sy.No.313, Ac.0.06 gts in Sy.No.343/C, Ac.0.18 gts in Sy.No.379/B and Ac.0.08 gts in Sy.No.398/A, total admeasuring Acs.6.33 gts, situated at Cherial Village and Mandal, Siddipet District, constitute joint family property; that the petitioner filed a suit- O.S.No.127 of 2011 for partition and separate possession against his family members, including respondent No.5 (arrayed as Defendant No.3 in the said suit), before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon; that the petitioner also filed I.A.No. 176 of 2011 and the trial Court by order dated 11.07.2011, granted ad interim injunction restraining the respondents therein, including respondent No.5 herein, from alienating the subject property and later, by order dated 21.10.2013, the said injunction order was extended until further orders.

3.1. It is further averred that though respondent Nos.5 and 6 were fully aware of subsistence of injunction order passed by trial Court restraining respondent No.5 from alienating the property, in violation of the said order, respondent No.5 executed a sale deed dated 22.07.2014, conveying an extent of Acs.3.00 gts in Sy.Nos.313/A and 313/E in favour of respondent No.6; and that respondent No.6 approached respondent No.1 seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records. It is further averred that the petitioner submitted representations dated 31.10.2014 and 01.06.2016 informing respondent No.1 about the pendency of the civil suit and requested not to effect any mutation in favour of respondent No.6.

3.2. It is further averred that initially, respondent No.1, considering the petitioner’s objections and the pendency of the civil suit, rejected the application for mutation, vide Memo in Rc.No.B-2313/2015 dated 19.06.2015. However, respondent No.6 once again approached respondent No.1 for mutation of the revenue entries and despite the petitioner’s repeated objections, respondent No.1, vide proceedings dated 08.07.2017, mutated the name of respondent No.6 in revenue records in respect of the subject property. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2, but, respondent No.2, vide orders in Case No. D/516/2018 dated 30.07.2018, disposed of the appeal without conducting a proper enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier, respondent No.1, after due consideration of the petitioner’s objections and the pendency of O.S. No.127 of 2011, rightly rejected the application of respondent No.6 for mutation, vide Memo dated 19.06.2015 in Rc.No.B-2313/2015. The said order attained finality, as respondent No.6 has not preferred any appeal against the same. He further submitted that once an order rejecting mutation has attained finality, the same cannot be re-agitated an