Disposed

Smt. Sunitha Pittie v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Sept 2025WP/27909/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed ownership of land in Adilabad District and objected to third parties seeking mutation on the Bhu Bharathi portal. Government Pleader said no such applications were received but agreed objections would be considered. Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation along with any such application, per law, without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Sunitha Pittie Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWFIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRITPETITION NO: 27909 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt- Sunitha Pjttie, !4q Mahesh Kumar Pittie, aged about S't years, Ocr: Business, R/o H. No. 1 5-7 -2O4, Begum Bazar, Hydeiabad-S000.1.?rr,r,Oa

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . Tfte State of TelarEana, rep. by its Princpal Secretary, Revenue dept., Hyderabad.

¶11

The District Collector, Adilabad District, Telanqana-504001

¶12

The Revenue DiMsional Officer, Adilabad Distiict, Telangana-504001. 4. The Tahsildar, Bheempur Mandal (Fornrerly Tamsi Maniial), Adilabad District, Telangana-502811.^'

¶13

The Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, Governrnent oi Telangana, Hyderatiad-500007

¶14

...RESPONOENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 not to mutate any other names in the Revenue records with respect to the Petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.37l3/A, admeasuring Acs. 23.00 Gts., situated at Andarbandh Viltage & c.P (37), Bheempur Mandal (Formerly Tamsi Mandal), Adilabad District, Telangana, under Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No.474712OO7, dt.12-11-2OOZ as recorded in Pattadar Passbook Unique lD No. 020528, Title Deed bearing Patta No. 536, without pufting the Petitioner, the rightful owner to notice.

¶16

I I I I I iI II ii t. i :

¶17

: i i

¶18

IA 10F

¶19

Petitic'n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit t'iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order or direct the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 not to mutate any other names in the Revenue' ret;ords with respect to the Petitioner's land bearing Sy.No. 3lt3tA, admeasuring Acs. 23.00 Gts., situated at Andarbandh Viilage & G.p (37), Bheempur Mandal (Formerly Tamsi Mandal), Adilabad District, Telangana, under Registered sale Deed bearing Doc. No.4747t2oo7, dt.12-11-2007 as recorded in Pattadar Pas;sbook Unique !D No. o2os2g, Tifle Deed bearing patta No. 536, pending this '/Urit Petition not to take any steps to create any third party interest in the Petitioner's property, in the interest of Justice.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt C. S. N. RAJU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court marde the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.27909 of 2025

¶24

ORAL ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and^{Mr.L.Ravinder,} learned Ast'rstant Government Pleader for Revenue^{appearing for the} respondents.

¶26

The Petitioner herein claims to be the^{absoluteowner and} possessor of land measuring Ac. 23-00 guntas in Sy.^{No. 37l3/A,} situated at Andarbandh Village, Bheempur Mandal^{(formerlyTamsi} Mandal), Adilabad Distict. In proof of^{the same, she has filed copies} of the old passbook and title dereds.^{She is in possessiono[ the said} property. Even then, third parties are trying^{to enter their names in the} Bhu Bharathi portal by submitting online^{applications by way of} misrepresentation of facts. Therefore, the^{petitioner has submitted} objections, vide representation dated^{08.05.2025,to respondent Nos.} 2 to 5, with a request not to entertain any such applications^subrnitted by third parties in respect of the aforesaid^{prope(y. Despite receiving} and acknowledging the said objections,^{respondentNos.l to 5 havc'} not considered the same. Aggrieved by the^{said inactionof} respondent Nos.2 to 5, the present writ petition^{is filed-}

¶27

¶28

¶29

whereas, the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revemre, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have n,ct received any applications in respect of the subject property requesting mutation of names or issuance of an E-pattadar passbook. However, if any such online application is received, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 will.consider the objections submitted by the petitioner vide representation dated 08.05.2025 and dispose of the same strictly in accordeurce with law.

¶30

tn light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of, dirr:ctins respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to consider the objections submitt,:d by the petitioner vide representation dated 0g.05.2025, along r,r'ith online application, if any, received from any third parties with a request to nrutate their names and issue E-pattadar passbooks in respect of the sub.icct property. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

A.s a secluel. miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶32

stand cktsed.

¶33

//TRUE GOPY//

¶34

SD/- A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSTSTANT BEGTSTRAR t_?/'

¶35

SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

1 2 3. 4. 5 6 7. Two COs to GP FOR REVENUE, High for the State of Telangana lourl 8. Two Ct) Copies MMT ft,tz GJP

¶38

I :l l ii I : I i I I I i I 1

, I I II t

DATED i1610912025

FI rl
E

WP.No.l27909 of 2025

lHE S
(
()
? 2 JAlt 2026
(.'-
*

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITON ITHOL'T COSTS

¶46

.P*c, 5(r 1'+

Smt. Sunitha Pittie v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Sunitha Pittie v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Didige Jaipal Vs The State of Telangana

Kethavath Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Bandari Anjaiah @ Chakali Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Mohammad Khasim Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. K. Cornelius, Vs The State of Telangana