Partly allowed

Battu Limbaiah v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Nov 2025WP/17272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging mutation of land titles in revenue records. The Court set aside impugned orders due to lack of valid proceedings and directed a fresh enquiry with notice to parties under the Teangana Bhu Bharathi Act, 2025, maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Tahsildar directed to conduct fresh enquiry with notices; status quo maintained on possession until enquiry concludes.

Battu Limbaiah Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t³³⁰² I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

IVONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 17272 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Battu Limbaiah, S/o. Late Bhuma Goud, (Died) As per Lr).

¶10

Battu Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Battu Limbaiah, Aged about 47 yearc, Occ: Business, Rl/o: H-No-2-2-19, Tilak Road, Korutla lown and lVlandal, Jagtial District.

¶11

(Petitioner No.2 is brought on record as LR of the deceased Petitioner No.1 as per C.O. dt:.27.10.2025 in l.A. No.1 ot 20251

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 State of Telangana, Department of Revenue, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶15

2 The District Special Tribunal at Jagtial, Jagtial, Jagtial district. 3 The District Collector, Jagtial district, Jagtial. 4 The Tahsildar, Korutla Mandal, Jagtial district

¶16

5 Alishetty Bhooma Reddy, S/o. Late Chinna Gangaram, Aged about 48 years, r/o. Korutla village and mandal, Jagtial district.

¶17

6 Allala Vijaya, C/o. Late Anja Goud, Aged about 59 years, R/o. Korutla village and mandal, Jagtial district.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lte Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records pertaining to order dated 15.6.2021 in File No.D/ST/75t2021 tCase No.D1/795/2018 passed by 2nd respond e nt-Tribunal, and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, without application of

¶20

mind and violative of Articres i4, 2i and 3004 of the c.r stitutron of rndia, and consequently direct the officiar respondents to incorporat( rame of the petitioner in revenue records in respect of Ac.1.00 guntas in survr> No..1 55 and Ac.0 37 guntas in survey No.'1 56, of Koruua shrvar and revenue n: ndal, Metpally district. in the interest of lustice.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Secrion^'r 51 cpc praying that in the r 'cumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High court r ray be preased to ca for the alleged fire of varidation proceedings of the ye r ,- 1996 viz. RoR tire No.B/482l1996, referred by the appeflate authority i.e. the ri rb corector, Metpary, in its order dated^'r 1r05r2o1\ in RoR Appear case No.r? :v-BoRo RArlor2ol /_ Revenrie without number or without date, for perusar of th;r Hon'bre court, in the interest of justrce.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶24

Petition under section r 5r cpc praying that in the (;r cumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High court m:7 be preased to Direct the official respondents to incorporate name of the petitiont r in revenue records rn respect of Ac.l .00 guntas in survey No..l 55 and Ac.0.37 g, tas in survey No..1 56, of Korutla shivar and revenue mandal, I\Ietpally district, in tl( interest of .iustice.

¶25

counsel for the Petitioner: SRr E. MADAN MOHAN RAo, Ii :NroR couNEL APPEARING FOR SRI M. SRINI''AS

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6: ___-

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.17272 OF 2027

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed questioning^{the orderdated} Case 15.06.2021 in File No.D/ST/7512O2r / No.D1/795/2018,^passed by the respondent^No.2/Special Tribunal, Jagtial, whereby the revision^{flled bythe} petitioncr against the orders^passed by the Sub-Collector^& Sub-Divisional Magistrate,^{Metpally,was dismissed}

¶34

2 Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao,^{learnedSenior} Counsel appearing for the^{learned Counsel forthe} pctitioner and the learned Assistant Government^Pleader for Revenue appearing for the^{oflicial respondents. In spite} o[ service of notice none appeared^{lor the respondentNos.5} and 6

¶35

3 The learned Senior Counsel lor the^{petitioner would} submit that the petitioner is the owner^{and possessor of} agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of^{Ac. 1.OO} guntas in Sy.No.155, and another extent of Ac.O.37^guntas

') sK,./

in Sy.No.156 of Korutla Villaeg and IR:venue Mandal (hereinafter lelerred to as 'subject lands". Originally the said lancl belongs to one Thirumala Raja 3oud, who had only one daughter by name Rajawa and sl r was married to one Battu Blroomanna. The petitioner i:; the son of said Bhoomanna and Rajawa and after death r I his parents the petitioner has becn in possession and cr joyment of the same being the sole legal heir. While i. bcing so, the petitioner camc to know that the names o the fathers of unoflicial respondent Nos.5 and 6 have 1r, en .".o.0"0 ,. Pattadars and possessors of the subject l,t^-rds from 19992000 onr,r'ards. Thc lamilies of unoffucial rt spondent Nos.5 and 6 rvere nr:r,,er in possession and enjoyrt:nt of any piece of land and Tirumala Raja Goud, who ,,as the original owner, nor thc petitioncr had sold any pit:r: : of land to the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6. The ollicial responden ts have recorded the narrles ,r^' the unollicial respondents urithout an1, valid documen t or proceedings and vvithoul thcre being any physic a1 possession.

¶40

.-.ir - ['F.i. .i iL -,.

¶41

J SK,J

¶42

Chalienging the said entries, the petitioner filed application belore the respondent No.4, but he did not pass any orders. Questioning the inaction of the respondent No.4 the petitioner filed W.P.No.1273 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent No.4 to dispose of the application hled by the petitioner.

¶43

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitoner also filed appeal in Case No.B/lOl2O17 under Section 5 (5) of the RoR Act lor not being corrected the entries by the respondent No.4 and the appellate authorit5r dismissed the said appeal on 11.05.2018 without verifying the documents and pahanies filed by the petitioner which shows the name of the grandfather of the petitioner the iast 50 years in respect of the subject land. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the Appeal, the petitioner filed revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 before the respondent No.3 and later the same was transferred to the respondent No.2. The said revision u,as disposed of on 04.O2.2021 without putting any

il Altt

I SK,J

notice to the petitioner. In view of the samc , the petitioner filcd a revien pursuant to the directions o[ )ivision Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2021 in WP (PIL) \o.20 of 2021 Thereafter the matter was taken up by lhe respondent No.2. When the matter was taken up lor eearing by the respondent No.2 on 15.06.2021 the C r unsel for the petitioner argued at length, but none altteared for the unoffrcial respondents. In spite of th,-' same, the respondent No.2 dismissed the revision on I5.06.202 1 with an observation that the revision petitioner hi s not Iiled any additional eviclence in support ol his content ons

¶48

The learr-red Senior Counsel for the :::titioner would further submit that the name of the grandfather of petitioner rvas clearly shon'n in the pzrhalr :s till 1998-99 and 2000 and therealter the names o: the unofficial respondents have been recorded without r', ference to any la'"r.ful orders under thc provisions of the ROR Act. The appellate authoritv has mcntioned in its^{,r -der} that there was validation in the year, 1996 in favour r f the unoflicial

¶49

J SK,J

¶50

¶51

respondents vide File No.B la82 I 1996, but lailed to furnish the so-called hle

¶52

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained copy of Inward Register of the Tahsildar, Korutla, for the year 1996 under Right to Information Act and the S1.No.482, pertaining to the Financc/ Money Lending Licence Renewal, but not validation proceedings in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 and without there being any proceedings, the respondent authorities have recorded the names of the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the year 1999 onu'ards.

¶53

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would lurther submit that the respondent No.2 dismissed the revision by way of a cryptic order without mentioning which additional material is required and without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has not considered the documents filed by the^petitioner

¶54

6 s1(,J

¶55

and passed impugned order and therefor I requestecl to allow the r,r,rit petition by setting aside the inpugned order passed by the respondent No.2 and also j )ught to direct the olficial respondents to record the narne r f the petitioner in respect of the sublect land.

¶56

Thc learned Assistant Governmt. rt pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filccl by the - rspondent No.2 would subrnit that the petitioner has challer ged the entries recorded in l-l.re name oI the unollicial cspondents in respect of thc subject lands before the rr: ;pondent No.4. After due enquiry and on verilication o[ t te records the respondent No.4 has found the narnes ol tir: lathers of the respondent No.5 and 6 in the records fr >m 1999-2000 onwards and advised the petitioner to lile a 1 ,peal under the provisions of ROR before thc Sub,Collecto , Metpally and accordingly the petitroner has liled appeal r ncler Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act, t97 L -r Case No.

¶57

Rev-BORORAiIO/2O17-Revenue and the s;i .id appeal was dismissed on 11.05.2018. Being Aggrieve r bJ, the same,

)

SX,J

the petitioner tiled revision before the Joint Collector, Jagtial under Section 9 of the Act, 197 I vide Case No.Dll795/2017. Subsequently the revision was transferred to the Special Tribunal/Respondent No.2 and after hearing both sides, the revision was dismissed by upholding the orders passed by the Sub-Collector, Metpally

¶63

9 The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the names of the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are existing in the records from 1999-2OOO onwards by virtue of ROR Proceedings in File No.482/1996 ol the respondent No.4 and the petitioner has opted to challenge the same after lapse of 15 years which is time barred one and the representation of the petitioner or his appeal is not supported by any petition for condoning such delay. Further, the petitioner has not hled any pahanies nor any additional evidence 1n support of his possession and on the other hand the respondent No.4 has observed that the subject land including the vacalt land of

¶64

¶65

8 sr(, J

¶66

Ac.O.10 guntas in Sy.No.156 is in use for rublic purpose and dismissed the review petition or-r 15.O6..1 )2 1.

¶67

The learned Assistant Government Pk:ader would lurther submit that this Court passed inter.ir r orders in this Writ Petition on 29.O7.2021 tn I.A.No. I o1'^>.O21 , directing the respondent No.4 to produce thr, file bearing No.Bl482 11996 by the next date of hearin; . But the said lile could not be traced even after thoroue^- scarch in the office of the respondent No.4 and there ar(' r o nterits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the u I rr pcrition

¶68

After healing both sides and on perl: ing thc record, this Court is of the considered vieu, thzrt tlrr grandlather of the petitioner namely Thirumala Raja Goucl vas the original owner and pattadar ol the land admeasurirrr to an extent of Ac.1.0O guntas 1n Sy.No. 155 and Ac.O il7 guntas 1n S1'.No. 156,, situated at I(orutla Village anrl Mandal. The contention of the petitioner is that, rfter death of graldfather oi the petitioner and his parenr i. the petitioner

SK,J

came into possession of Lhe subject land. While it being so, without any notice to the^petitioner or his^family Members the revenue authoritics have mutated the names of^.the lathers of the respondent No.5 and 6 in respect of the subject land without there being any^{proceedings.On} coming to know of the same, the^petitioner filed appeal before the Sub-Collector and the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the grand lather of the^{petitionersold} an extent of Ac.1.O0 Guntas in Sv.No.156 and an extent^of Ac.O.27 guntas 1n Sy.No.156 under a simple sale deed dated 06.08.1976 and the same^r"'as validated^{by the then} Tahsildar, Korutla in File No.Bl482 11996 and^issued proceedings on 29.19.1996 and the narnes of fathers of the respondents Nos.S and 6 were recorded and the said land was using lor cattle shed ol the villagers i.e. public purpose. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner liled revision before the respondent No.3/Joint Collector and the same was later transferred to the Special Tribunal/Respondent No.2 in the

year 2O2O

1A SK,J

The main contention of the petition( r is that the grandfather of the petitioner or his parents never sold the sulrject prol)erty to the fathers of the respon( cnt Nos.5 and 6 zrnd therc is no proceedings with regard o rnutation of the records. The revenue authorities \'1hout lollow,ing any procedure and without there being r,rv procecdings mutated the names of the fathers ol the re-. oondent Nos..5 and 6 in respect of the subject proller v liom 1999 onwards, in spite the petitioner is in po s ;ession <tf the subject property since long time. The Revr nue Divisional Officer rvithout verilying the records and onl ' basing on the report of the Tahsildar, dismissed the appr al liled bv the petitioncr and it cleariy shows that the Special Tribunal/respondent No.2 without taking rccolrnt ol the contentions raised by the petitioners, mercl' ' basing on the orders ol' the Sub-Collector, Metpalll' dismissed the revtsl0n

¶78

1l SK,J

¶79

During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court about Memo vide USR No. 111889 dated 10.1O.2025 iiled by the petitioner and along r:r,ith the said Memo the petitioner filed copy of Inward Register of the year 1996 of the Tahsildar, Korutla, which was obtained under RTI Act and it clearly shows that S1.No.482, pertaining to renewal of a Finance/Money lending licence, but not pertaining to the validation proceedings. At Para No.7 <if tl-re counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 it is stated that in view of the interim orders passeci by this Court on 29.07 .2021 in the instalt writ petition, they searched for the ROR file No.48211996 but could not be traced even after through search in the office of the respondent No.4. It clearly shows that the respondent authorities have failed to produce the ROR Proceedings No.B/a82 11996, through which the simple sale deed 06.08. 1976 in respect of the subject land was validated

t) .SK. J

As pcr the documents furnished b-r. the respondent No.4 to thc pctitioner under RTI Act, S1.No 482 pcrtains to renewal ol Finance/Money lending li::nst:, but not validations proceedings in respect of the sr ltject land. It clearly shows that, the then Tahsildar mutil -ed tl-re rc\renue records rvithout any proceedings and iri vi rw of the same the question of dela.y in challenging the ROF proceeclings in frile No.4812/199 does not arise as hetcl rri this Court in Gund.a So,rolamtna (died) per ZRs Es. State of Telanganat

¶84

The rt:spondcnt No.4 without followinp, ralid proccclurc and without thcre being aly proceedin3s , mutated thc names ol the lathers of the respondcnt I os.5 and (> in rcspect of the subject property. The appel r tc authorit._v as well as tlie revisional authority, withotr verilying thc records and without considering the submi, sions rnade bv the petitioner, dismissed the appeal a; well as thc

¶85

1 2025 SCC Onlrnr,. TS 940

¶86

13 SK,J

¶87

¶88

revlsron. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the respondents authorities are liable to be set aside

¶89

In view of the above finding, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 in File No.D/ST/75 /2O2U Case No.Dl lST/75/2018, dated 15.06.2021 and the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in Rev.BORORAIIO/2017Revenue, dated 1 1.05.2018 and also entt'ies in the Revenue records in favour of the unolficial respondents pertaining to the suit schedule property by directing the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, to conduct fresh enquiry in 1.C respect of the subject property agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.00 guntas in Sy.No.155, and another extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.156 of Korutla Village and Revenue Mandal, by issuing notices to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents and after considering the documents, including thc personal hearing and pass appropriate orders as per the Teiangana Bhu Bharathi (Record of Rights in Land) Acl, 2025. Tili

trl

11 sI(, .r

conclusion of the said enquiry, both partic: are directed to

¶94

malntaln status quo with regard to the po.;ession existing as on todav. No order as to costs.

¶95

Miscellaneous petitions pending, il rny. shall also

¶96

c1o sed

¶97

SD/- A.I1 S. GOWRI SHANKAR Ar; ;tsTANT RgftsTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIOVOFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Telar ;ana, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶103

The District Special Tribunal at Jagtial, Jagtial, Jagtial r istrict.

¶104

3 The District Collector, Jagtial district, Jagtial.

¶105

The Tahsildar, Korutla lr,,4andal, Jagtial district

¶106

One CC to Sri IV. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]

¶107

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the Statr: ;f Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶108

Two CD Copres

TJ LS qft

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711112025

ORDER

// -,'
.) 1r',
, 4 L;t, fifr
-i !
.'i /
/
-,,-

¶114

WP.No.17272 of 2021

¶115

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶116

WTTHOUT COSTS
?+
2<br>k\ t>

Battu Limbaiah v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Battu Limbaiah v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gajula Rajamallaiah @ Rajamallu Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Divyesh Agrawal Vs The State of Telangana

Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Paravastu Ramesh Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Hamed Rizwan Vs The State of Telangana

Bikkana Padmalatha Rani Vs The State of Telangana