When a statutory appellate remedy is available under the Telangana Bhu Bharati Act, 2025, parties aggrieved by revenue record corrections should utilize that mechanism, ensuring all affected parties are heard before a final decision is rendered.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. K.V.L. Jaya Simha, learned counsel representing Mr. G. Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Gurram Hemanth Netha representing Mr. Gurram Venkat Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner and Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. The impugned order was passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.No.17610 of 2025 on 24.06.2025 without notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6 therein, who are the appellants herein, with a direction to the respondent authorities to pass a reasoned order on the application of the writ petitioner, who is respondent No.1 herein, for correction of entries in the revenue records under the provisions of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short ‘the Act’), concerning the subject land. The impugned direction has led to passing of an order dated 19.12.2025 which has adversely affected the interests of the appellants who state that the said proceedings were without any notice to them. The appellants have further stated that there are two writ petitions pending relating to the same subject matter by the same writ petitioner.

3. Today, once again when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the submissions that the impugned order has been passed without any notice to the appellants, who were respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the writ petition. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has also referred to the order dated 19.12.2025, which was passed pursuant to the directions issued in the impugned order, against which an appeal would lie before the Revenue Division Officer/respondent No.4. He has placed the decision of this Court in WA No.323 of 2026, wherein this Court had granted liberty to the appellant therein to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the revenue authorities.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the impugned direction has been carried out and a fresh order has been passed by respondent No.4. The appellants may assail the same in an appropriate proceeding before the appellate authority in terms of the Act.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and that the impugned direction has been given effect to in passing a fresh order dated 19.12.2025, which is also part of the writ appeal, we are of the considered view that the appellants should approach the appellate authority if aggrieved by the said order. The appellants are granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the order dated 19.12.2025 before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The statutory framework under the Act provides for an appellate mechanism against the orders passed by the Tahsildar. The grievance of the appellants essentially arises from the action of the Tahsildar in deleting their names from the revenue records. Such action, having civil consequences, is amenable to scrutiny before the appellate authority, which is competent to examine both the procedural compliance and the underlying claims, including directing the verification of records and if necessary, conducting a survey. Upon filing of such appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned shall issue notice to all the affected parties, afford them an opportunity of hearing, permit them to lead documentary and oral evidence if necessary before disposing of the appeal in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal.

Till the appellate authority renders its final decision, the status quo as directed by this Court vide interim order d