HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI DATE OF ORDER : 07.04.2026 Between Mr.Achukatla Komaraiah and 2 others.

.. Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others .. Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring proceedings of the 3^rd Respondent in Letter No. A/5290/2007, dated 24-06-2010 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. R.O.R. Act and consequently direct the Respondents to set-a-side the said proceedings in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Ms.Dania Danish Khan, learned amicus for petitioners and Ms.Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. It is the case of petitioners that their grandfather, Mr.Achakatla Yellaiah, is pattadar of land in Sy.No.957/B, admeasuring Ac.0.37 cents, situated at Shyampet Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. That it is a ‘Nowkari Inam’ and is reflected in revenue records, that their grandfather is the Inamdar. Learned Amicus (appointed by Court) submitted that petitioners’ grandfather being an Inamdar was in possession of land, subsequently, petitioners’ father, i.e., Mr.Achakatla Komaraiah, was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same, and petitioners were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

4. It is submitted that petitioners partitioned property and made an application in Form-VI under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act’), that Respondent No.4 mutated names of petitioners in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

5. It is submitted by learned Amicus that petitioners were surprised to know that name of respondent No.5 was recorded as Pattadar and possessor in the revenue records of 2014-2015. That petitioners came to know that respondent No.3 by proceedings vide letter No.A/5290/2007 dated 24.08.2010 directed respondent No.4 to cancel Pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of petitioners. It is further submitted by learned Amicus that no notice was issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4 before passing impugned proceedings dated 24.06.2010 and that it is violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Petitioners herein are challenging proceedings/order dated 24.06.2010 (Ex.1,Pg.No.10 of writ papers).

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of official respondents submitted that it was upon an enquiry conducted, Tahsildar mutated the name of Mr.Gande Krishna vide letter dated 08.01.2010 bearing No.A/794/2008. It is further submitted that office of RDO, Hanamkonda, passed on a copy of written instructions from office of Government Pleader, dated 16.03.2026. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has pointed out that RDO specifically stated in his instructions that Tahsildar did not follow the prescribed procedure under ROR Act that notices were not issued. Hence, act of Tahsildar was not in accordance with law.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered the submissions.

8. Petitioners claim that they are pattadars of land in Sy.No.957/B, admeasuring 0.37 cents, situated at Shampet Village, Hanamkonda Mandal. It is claimed that their grandfather was an Inamdar, and land was recorded as ‘Nowkari Inam’ in the revenue records in the name of their grandfather, Mr.Achakatla Yellaiah. That after death of their grandfather, their father’s name, Mr.Achakatla Komaraiah, was recorded in revenue records. Pahani patrikas, reflect the name of Mr.Achakatla Komaraiah. Two pahanies reflect the name of Mr.Gande Krishna, none other pahanies reflect the name of respondent No. 5. The name of Mr. Gande Narsaiah’s b