M. Chandrashekar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

M. Chandrashekar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed without costs: (i) the District Collector's order dated 17.08.2023 in File No.Rev/01/ROR/0001/2023 is set aside; (ii) respondent No.2 is directed to issue e-pattadar passbooks to the petitioner for the subject property; (iii) respondent No.5 may approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief within three (3) months; (iv) parties to maintain status quo over the subject property till such time; (v) any trial court hearing such a suit is to dispose of it without being influenced by this Court's observations; (vi) pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar in Rev/01/ROR/0001/2023 (based on the Tahsildar's report No.B/05/2022 dated 19.05.2023 alleging a sada bainama sale by the petitioner's father) rejecting the petitioner's claim for digitalized e-pattadar passbooks is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, and whether the petitioner is entitled to issuance of digitalized pattadar passbooks-cum-title deeds for the subject lands (Ac.8-13 gts., Sy.Nos.334/E to 381/E, Kervena/Karvena Village, Boothpur Mandal). +1 more

Court's answer

Applying Section 6 of the Act, 1971, the Court held that every entry in the record of rights is presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until otherwise amended in accordance with that Act; prima facie verification showed pattadar passbook No.228036 and patta No.916 issued in the petitioner's favour.

Ratio / Principle

Since respondent No.5 took no steps to regularise his claimed possession — neither by approaching the competent civil court nor by availing the Section 5-A remedies of the Act, 1971 — and in the absence of a valid transfer, or of the sada bainama being regularised conferring certain rights, or of a suit for eviction of the petitioner's father or questioning the entries made in the petitioner's favour, the Court held that respondent No.2's rejection of the e-pattadar passbook claim was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 1971 or the Act, 2020.

Key takeaways

The Court held that the order dated 17.08.2023 in File No.Rev/01/ROR/0001/2023 passed by respondent No.2 (the impugned rejection order) is liable to be set aside.ratio¶41
The writ petition is allowed: the order in File No.Rev/01/ROR/0001/2023 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside, and respondent No.2 is directed to issue e-pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property.ratio¶43
Since respondent No.5 claims possession of the subject property from long time, it is left open to him to approach the competent civil court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months; till such time the parties are directed to maintain status quo over the subject property as existing as on the date of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) — allowed without costs. Telangana High Court (Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, single bench), W.P. No. 2029 of 2024, order dated 17.04.2025. The petitioner, recorded possessor of Ac.8-13 guntas in Sy.Nos.334/E to 381/E at Kervena Village, Boothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (pattadar passbook No.228036, patta No.916), sought digitalized e-pattadar passbooks; the District Collector rejected his claim by order dated 17.08.2023 in Rev/01/ROR/0001/2023 on the strength of the Tahsildar's enquiry report No.B/05/2022 dated 19.05.2023, which alleged that the petitioner's father had sold the land to respondent No.5 through an unregularised private sale deed (sada bainama) dated 28.12.1979. Held: under Section 6 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, every entry in the record of rights is presumed true until proved otherwise; absent a valid transfer, regularization of the sada bainama under Section 5-A, or a civil suit challenging the entries, the rejection was not in consonance with the Act, 1971 or the Act, 2020 and was set aside, with respondent No.2 directed to issue e-pattadar passbooks. Respondent No.5, claiming possession, is left free to seek appropriate relief from the competent civil court within three (3) months; the parties are to maintain status quo meanwhile; any trial court hearing such a suit is expressly told not to be influenced by these observations. No precedent case is cited in this order.

[32e6 ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO:2029 0F 2024

Between:

M. Chandrashekar, S/o Yellaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Aqriculture. Rl/o Bhoothpur Village and Mandal, Mah-abubnagar Didtrict.

...PETIT|ONER

ANO

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue

Department, TS Secretariat Buildinqs. Hvcierabad.

The District Collector, Mahabubnaglr'Di6trict, Mahabubnagar.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mrhabubnagar Revenue Division, Mahabubnagar District.

The Tahsildar, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnaoar District.

Miryala Vishwanatham S{o M,Parandhamulu, A-ged about 68 years, Occ: Agriculture,- Ri/o. H. No. 1 -S-1 1 3/F, Ambed kamagir, Karvena Village, Boothpure Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, T.S--.

(Egryql9gnt No.5 is impteaded as per Court Order dt: 11.04.2025 in lA.No.212024)

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased 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/RoRl/o1o112023, Dated 1zt0\t2o23 in the report issued by the Tahsildar, Boothpur vide No.8/05/2O22, dt.19l\St2023 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 land bearing Sy. Nos.357iE, 368/EE, 369/EE, 3701E, 381tE, 372tE, 373tU, 374tUtJ,375tEE, 376tEE, 377tE, 378tEE, 380/E, 381/E, 334/E, 335/EE, 336/EE, 337tEE,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.

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by District Collector, Mahabubnagar in Rev/O'l/ROR/0OO112023, Dated 17108/2023 in the re-port issued by the Tahsitdar, Boothpir vide No.8/05/2O22, dt.1gt}5l2023 in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DR. KADIRI KRISHNAIAH Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGp FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: -

The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

UIRIT PETITION No.2O29 of 2 o24

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

". . ..to issue appropiate uit or order or direction more^particularly one in the nafiire of uit of MANDAMUS declaing the^ord.ers possed bg District Collector, Mahabubnagar in Reu/ 01/ ROR/ O0O1/ 2023, dated 17/O8/2O23 in the report issued by the Tahsildar, Boothpur uide No.B/05/2022 dated 19/ 05/ 2023 as illegal, arbitrary, disciminatory and against^to the principles of the Natural Justice and consequentlA set aside the same by issuing the digitalized Pattodo.r^{pa.ssbook-cum-title} deed to the petitioner in respect of the lands beaing Ss Nos.357/E, 368/EE, s69/ED, s7o/8, s81/8, 372/8, 373/U, s74/UU, 37s/EE, 376/EE, s77/8, s78/EE, 38O/8, s81/8, 334/ D, 335/ ED, 336/ EE, 337/ EE, 338/ RU, 339/ EE to an extent of Ac.8.13 Gts Situated at Kerueno Villoge, Boothpur^Mand.al, Malutbubnagor Di-stict, TelarLgo.na state in the interest of justice.. . . "

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. I to 4; learned counsel for respondent No.S aIId perused the record.

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 I EE, 37^o / E, 38 I / E, 372 I^E, 373 /^{u, 37 4} I^{UU, 37 5} I^EE, 376/E,E, s77 /D, 378/EE, 380/E, 381/E,³³⁴ /8,^{33s/EE, 336/EE,}

2

337 lEE, 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 alsc, issued pattidar passbooks r.ride passbook No.228036 and palta No.916 in his favour. The cilse of the petitioner is that whr:n the respondent authorities have not issued digitalized e-pattadar passbooks in his favour, he submitted an online application bearing No.2100068786 with a re<1uest to issue e-pattadar passbooks, and. despite receiving the said application, when the respondent autl:lorities^.have not considered the said application, he filed W.P.No.-.,196 of 2023 before this Court and the same was disposed of uide 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 thc date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is further case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the orcters of this Court, respondent. No.2-the District Collector, passed order dated

18.Oa.2023 in File No.Rev/D1/ROR/ 10001/2023 rejecting his claim for issua.nce of e-pattadar passbooks statlng that as per the enquiry report No.B/05/2022 dated 19.O5.2Ct2,,3 of respondent No.4-the Tahsildar, during the life time, Sri Miryala Yellaiah (father of the petitioner) sold the subject property in .avour of one Sri Miryaia Vishwanatham (impleaded respondert No.5) through

3

private' sale deed (sada bainama) dated 2g.l2.1g7g, 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.S 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except stating that sada bainama dated 2g.12.1979 has been executed ih 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 hle an appeal under Section 5-B ofthe Act, 1977.

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 vehemently contended that respondent No.S 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 0f lggo for partition of tr-re subject property before the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, and the same was dismissed on 09.OZ.l99g, and thereafter, respondent No.5 is in continuous possession of the subject property.

4

Pima facie, verification of the records would reveal that the pattadar passbooks ulde 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, 1917'1 (for short Act, l97l) every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is othcrwise amended in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1971. lrL addition to the above, respondent No.S having claimed the possessory rights over the subject property, has not taken any steps l-o regularize the possession either by approaching the competent Civil Court or by availing the remedies in terrns of Section 5-A of the Act, 1971. In the absence of valid transfer, or sada bainama rsaid 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 fdr- issuance of e-pattadar passbooks is n,rt in consonance with the provisions of the Act, I97 I or under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short Act, 2O2O\ and the order dated 17.Oa.2O23 in Rev/01/ROR/0001/2003 passed by respondent Nc,.2 is liable to be set aside.

5

In view of the^{above,this Writ Petitionis allowed by setting} asidetheorderinFileNo.Rev/01/RoR/0001i2003passedby respondent^{No.2. The RespondentNo 2 is directed to issuee-} pattadar passbooks^{in favour of the petitioner in respect of the} subject^{property.Since it is the claim of respondentNo'5 that he is} in possession^{of the subject propertyfrom long time' it is left open} for him to approach^{the competentCivil Court and seekappropriate} relief, in accordance^{with law, within a period of three (3) months} from today.^{Till suchtime, the partiesare directedto maintain} status^{quo over the subject property existingas on today' 'lt is} needless to^{observethat in the event of such a suit is filed' the trial} Courtshalldisposeofthesamewithoutbeinginfluencedbyany observations^{madebY this Court'}

As a sequel,^{the miscellaneouspetitions pending'if any' shall}

stand closed.^{No orderas to costs}

SD/. P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA UTY REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To 't. The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department, TS Secretariat Buildings'} Hvderabad. State of Telangana.

1. i#-Dtffit dllLlior,^{tuaniuuunagarDistrict, Mahabubnagar'.} 3. iii; H;ffi;iiiriiionii-om."t,^{MihabubnasarRevenue Division'} /lahabubnaoar District.

1. iiie i;i;iE5; ehootnpur^{Mandal, MahabubnagarDistrict'} 5. o"-. btiJ sit^{on. xnotnt KRISHNAIAH Advocate[oPUC.]-} 6. i;; ddr'i"-c'i ron^{nEvErluE,High court for the Stateof relangana' at} Hyderabad. [OUTI

1. Two CD Copies

PSK.

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710412025

ORDER

WP.No.2029 of 2024

Iittr; s) r.i l.r i
1
a(
:
{', 2 5 API 2tr5
<br>ii.

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

\t)
t-

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Rejection of the petitioner's claim for issuance of digitalized e-pattadar passbooks by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar in File No.Rev/01/ROR/0001/2023 dated 17.08.2023, resting on the Tahsildar, Boothpur's enquiry/report No.B/05/2022 dated 19.05.2023, which found that the petitioner's father Sri Miryala Yellaiah had during his lifetime sold the subject property to respondent No.5 Miryala Vishwanatham through a private sale deed (sada bainama) dated 28.12.1979.¶30
District Collector, Mahabubnagar (respondent No.2) · 17.08.2023
Prior proceeding
The revenue authorities mutated the petitioner's name in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook No.228036 and patta No.916 in his favour.¶34
Prior proceeding
When e-pattadar passbooks were not issued, the petitioner submitted online application No.2100068786 requesting issuance of e-pattadar passbooks; the respondent authorities did not act on it.¶34
Prior proceeding
The petitioner filed an earlier writ (W.P.No. __196 of 2023; number partially illegible in the source) before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2023 directing respondent No.2 therein to dispose of the petitioner's application within eight weeks.¶34
Prior proceeding
In pursuance of the 23.02.2023 order, the District Collector passed the rejection order (dated 18.08.2023 per this passage's OCR; elsewhere shown as 17.08.2023) in File No.Rev/D1/ROR/10001/2023 rejecting the claim for e-pattadar passbooks, relying on the enquiry report No.B/05/2022 dated 19.05.2023 of respondent No.4-the Tahsildar.¶35
Prior proceeding
Per counsel for respondent No.5: the petitioner's father instituted O.S.No.40 of 1990 for partition of the subject property before the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, which was dismissed on 09.02.1999 (source OCR: '09.OZ.l99g'); thereafter respondent No.5 claims continuous possession.¶39
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5 was impleaded in the present writ petition as per Court Order dated 11.04.2025 in I.A.No.2/2024.¶17