Telangana High Court
M. Chandrashekar vs The State Of Telangana on 17 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.2029 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the orders
passed by District Collector, Mahabubnagar in
Rev/01/ROR/0001/2023, dated 17/08/2023 in the report
issued by the Tahsildar, Boothpur vide No.B/05/2022 dated
19/05/2023 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against to
the principles of the Natural Justice and consequently set aside
the same by issuing the digitalized Pattadar passbook-cum-title
deed to the petitioner in respect of the lands bearing
Sy.Nos.357/E, 368/EE, 369/EE, 370/E, 381/E, 372/E, 373/U,
374/UU, 375/EE, 376/EE, 377/E, 378/EE, 380/E, 381/E,
334/E, 335/EE, 336/EE, 337/EE, 338/RU, 339/EE to an extent
of Ac.8.13 Gts Situated at Kervena Village, Boothpur Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District, Telangana state in the interest of
justice….”
2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner; Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4; learned counsel
for respondent No.5 and perused the record.
3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor
of agriculture lands admeasuring Acs.8-13 guntas in Sy.Nos.357/E,
368/EE, 369/EE, 370/E, 381/E, 372/E, 373/U, 374/UU, 375/EE,
376/EE, 377/E, 378/EE, 380/E, 381/E, 334/E, 335/EE, 336/EE,
2
337/EE, 338/RU and 339/EE situated at Kervena Village,
Boothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, having acquired the
same from his ancestors, and the revenue authorities have mutated
his name in the revenue records and also issued pattadar
passbooks vide passbook No.228036 and patta No.916 in his
favour. The case of the petitioner is that when the respondent
authorities have not issued digitalized e-pattadar passbooks in his
favour, he submitted an online application bearing No.2100068786
with a request to issue e-pattadar passbooks, and despite receiving
the said application, when the respondent authorities have not
considered the said application, he filed W.P.No.5196 of 2023 before
this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated
23.02.2023 directing respondent No.2 therein to dispose of the
application submitted by the petitioner within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is further
case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the orders of this Court,
respondent No.2-the District Collector, passed order dated
18.08.2023 in File No.Rev/D1/ROR/10001/2023 rejecting his
claim for issuance of e-pattadar passbooks stating that as per the
enquiry report No.B/05/2022 dated 19.05.2023 of respondent
No.4-the Tahsildar, during the life time, Sri Miryala Yellaiah (father
of the petitioner) sold the subject property in favour of one Sri
Miryala Vishwanatham (impleaded respondent No.5) through
3
private sale deed (sada bainama) dated 28.12.1979, and the claim
of the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the
subject property since long time is incorrect. The grievance of the
petitioner is that during the lifetime, his father has not sold the
subject property to any third parties including respondent No.5 as
alleged in the order dated 19.05.2023 of respondent No.2, therefore,
prays this Court to set aside order passed by respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except
stating that sada bainama dated 28.12.1979 has been executed in
favour of respondent No.5, no orders were passed by the respondent
authorities validating the said sada bainama under Section 5-A of
the Act, 1971 to enable the petitioner to file an appeal under
Section 5-B of the Act, 1971.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 vehemently contended
that respondent No.5 is in possession of the subject property by
way of private sale deed (sada bainama) and the father of the
petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.40 of 1990 for partition of the
subject property before the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, and
the same was dismissed on 09.07.1998, and thereafter, respondent
No.5 is in continuous possession of the subject property.
4
6. Prima facie, verification of the records would reveal that the
pattadar passbooks vide passbook No.228036 and patta No.916 are
issued in favour of the petitioner. As per Section 6 of the Telangana
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘Act,
1971’) every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be
true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in
accordance with the provisions of Act, 1971. In addition to the
above, respondent No.5 having claimed the possessory rights over
the subject property, has not taken any steps to regularize the
possession either by approaching the competent Civil Court or by
availing the remedies in terms of Section 5-A of the Act, 1971. In
the absence of valid transfer, or sada bainama said to have been
executed is regularized conferring certain rights or instituting suit
for eviction of the petitioner father or questioning the entries made
in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records and issuance of
pattadar passbooks, respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for issuance of e-pattadar passbooks is not in consonance
with the provisions of the Act, 1971 or under the provisions of the
Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for
short ‘Act, 2020’) and the order dated 17.08.2023 in
Rev/01/ROR/0001/2003 passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be
set aside.
5
7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting
aside the order in File No.Rev/01/ROR/0001/2003 passed by
respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 is directed to issue e-
pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner in respect of the
subject property. Since it is the claim of respondent No.5 that he is
in possession of the subject property from long time, it is left open
for him to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate
relief, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months
from today. Till such time, the parties are directed to maintain
status quo over the subject property existing as on today. It is
needless to observe that in the event of such a suit is filed, the trial
Court shall dispose of the same without being influenced by any
observations made by this Court.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 17.04.2025
Note: Issue C.C in one week.
(b/o)
sus