M. Ranjeesh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M. Ranjeesh Reddy, S/o. M. Sudharshan Reddy. Aged about 34 years. Occ Business, Rl/o. H. No. 8-1-16412, Pragathi Colony, Mailardevpally Mllage, GHMC Rajendranagar Circle, RR District.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶14

The Collector, Rangareddy District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Faroorqnagar Mandal, Telangana State.

¶16

Badavat Ramulu, S/o. Bhadavath Pandu, Aged about 45 years, Occ Govt. Employee, Ri/o. Pasula Tanda, Kamsanpally Village, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

T*T5Iil-tF{$-S

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC pralng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to maintain status^quo in respect revenue entries pertaining to the land admeasuring Ac.3.00cts in Sy.No.69/A of Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

l.A" NO: 2 OF 2026 Between:

¶20

Badavat Flamulu, S/o. Bhadavath Pandu, Aged about 45^{years, Occ Govt.} Employee, R/o. Pasula Tanda, Kamsanpally Mllage, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

...PETITION ER/RESPONDENT

¶22

AND

¶23

M. Flanjeesh Reddy, S/o. M. Sudharshan Reddy. Aged^about 34^{years. Occ} Busirress, R/o. H. No. 8-1-16412,^{PragathiColony, MailardevpallyVillage,} GHtvlc Rajendranagar Circle, RR^District.

¶24

... RES PO NDENT/APPELLANT

¶25

AND

¶26

The^:itate of Telangana, Represented by its^{Principal Secretary, Revenue} Departm ent, Secretariat Bui ldi ng, Secretariat,^{Hyderabad,Telangana.}

¶27

The^()ollector, Rangareddy District.

¶28

The Tahsildar, Faroorqnagar Mandal, Telangana State.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS/RESPON DENTS

¶30

Petition lnder Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated^{in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourtmay be pleased to vacate the} interim order:; dated 17.3.2026 in W.A.No.³²³ of^{2026 and dismiss the above Writ} Appeal with exemplary costs, in the interest of^justice.

¶31

Counsel for the Appellant : MS.L.VANI

¶32

counsel for the Respondents No.lto, ' :H I"HLl7Jiffi=-EDDY KATRAM,

¶33

Counsel for tlre Respondents No.4 : SRI C.RAGHU, rep.,^{SRI R.GlRl KUMAR}

¶34

rr)

¶35

IN TTIE HIGH OOURT FOR TTIE SIATE^{OF TEIANGANA} AT IIYDERABAD

¶36

THE HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSIICE SRI APARESIH KI'MAR^SINGH AND THE H6u'sLp sRr JUsrIcE c.M.MoHruDDIN

¶37

WRIT APPEAL No.323 of 2026

DATE: 07.o,4.2o126

Between:

M.Ranjeesh Reddy

.Appellant

And

State of Telangana Represented by its Principal

¶44

Secretary and 3 others

¶45

....Respondents

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Heard Ms.L.Vani, learned counsel for the appellant;

¶48

Mr.Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader^for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and^Mr.C.Raghu, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Giri Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the record.

¶49

This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the^Letters Patent, assails the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23O89 of 2025. The appellant herein invoked the extraordinary^jurisdiction of this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in deleting his name from the Bhu Bharati Portal, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.00 Gts. in Sy.No.69/A (reflected as Sy.No.69/AA) of Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga

¶50

2

¶51

Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as .subject propertyJ, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short'FloR Act2o2sJ, and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶52

3- Tre apperlant is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.22o9o of 2org dated 14.06.2019. The apPellant traced his title through a continuous chain of transactions originating from the original pattedar, namely Badavath Pent5ra, vrhose name stood duly mutated in the revenue records and he was ir;sued pattadar passbook bearing No. T050 60240912 with Khata No. 6O172.

¶53

The dispute arose subsequently on 2z -o6.2o2s, when the appellant was summoned by the office of the 3rd respondent_ Tahsildar ,nder the guise of a general enquiry and was cailed upon to submit his title documents, which he furnished on 30.06.2025. However, o't O4-O7.2025, the appellant noticed that an unauthorized "Passbook l)ata correction Application" bearing No.25ooo577o5 had been initiated on the Bhu Bharati portal in respect of his land, despite no rsuch application being made by him. Though the said application was later cancelled upon his representation dated 07 'o7 '2025, the 3'd respondent initiated another transaction bearing

¶54

/

¶55

3

¶56

No.SD25OO00321O for deletion of a^purported lictitious^survey number, without issuing any notice or^{conducting any enquiry.}

¶57

Upon seeking details on L6.O7.2O25, the appellant^was furnished with a notice dated O4.O7.2O25, which had been deliberately sent to an incorrect and fictitious address, thereby depriving him of an effective opportunity of participation. Despite the appellant submitting a detailed explanation on L8.O7.2O25 and requesting a physical survey to establish his possession, the 2'd and 3.d respondents, at the instance of the 4th respondent, deleted the appellant's entry from the Bhu Bharati Portal without conducting any enquiry, without granting any hearing, and without passing any speaking order. Aggrieved by this summary procedure, the appellant filed the underlying writ petition.

¶58

The learned Single Judge while allowing the underlying writ petition has held hereunder:

¶59

Accordinglg, this court deems it appropriate to allou this writ petition and the impugned proceedings in Case No.Dl/ 39/ 2021, B/ 6332/ 2O1g, dated 26.06.2021 ha"s been set asid.e and. the matter is remanded. back to the special rribunar, Ranga Red.dy District to anduct proceediltgs afresh" strictlg in accordance uith lant, by rssuing notie to att the ancerned and affording sufficient opportunity of lwnring, 6rs expeditiouslg a^s possible. There shatt be no orderas fo cosfs.

¶60

7, Aggrieved by the said order, the appeilant has preferred the present writ appeal

¶61

4

¶62

Submissrions on behalf of the appellant

¶63

[,erlrned counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned order and has;rdvanced submissions as under:

¶64

i) Thztt the impugned order is vitiated by a natent^{jurisdictional} error, as the Court cannot grant relief in respect of an order whi:h is not the subject matter of challenge. The writ petition filed by the appellant was specifically confined to questioning the tegality of the deletion of his name from the Bhu Bharati Portal. Neither the pleadings nor the reliefs sought included any challenge to the order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal in Case No.DLl39l2O2l, B/633712019. However, the learned Single^{Judge proceeded to set aside the} said crd.er and^{remanded the matter for fresh consideration- [t}

¶65

.wascrrntended,thatsuchexercise,travelsbeyondthescopeof the pleadings^{and reliefs sought'thereby rendering the} impugned^{order unsustainablein [aw'}

¶66

ii)ThattheactionofrespondentNos.2and3indeletingthe appellztnt'snamefromtheBhuBharatiPortalisexfacie arbitraryandinclearviolationoftheprinciplesofnatural justice. as no notice^{was servedon the appellant prior to} effecting^{such deletion. The notice dated o4,o7.2o25,relied} upop^{h$r the respondents,was addressedto an incorrect and} fictitiouts^{address,thereby depriving the appetlant ofan}

5

.;

.t

effective opportunity^{of participation, whichis contrary to the} mandate of^{Rule 4 of the Telangana Bhu Bharati(Record of} Rights in^{Land) Rules, 2025 (for short 'ROR Rules 2025)'} which requires compliance^{with due process before effecting} any change in the^{record of rights'}

¶71

iii) That the RoR Act,^{2025, along with the Rules framed} thereunder, constitute^{a completecode governing maintenance} and correction of^{land records. [n terms of Rule 4, any} alteration in the^{record of rights must be precededby issuance} of notice to affected^{parties, conductof a properenquiry'and} passingofareasonedorder.Inthepresentcase,the3rd respondent-Tahsildar^{acted solelyon the basis of an online} application allegedty^{made at the instance ofthe 4th} respondent, without^{verificationof title or possession,and} unilaterally deleted^{the appeltant's name. such action, it was} contended, is^{without authority of law and contrary to the} statutory scheme.

¶72

iv) That the appellant^{had acquired valid title to the subject} property through a^{registeredsale deed dated 14.o6.2oL9,} after due verification^{of titte and issuanceof public notice and} his name was^{subsequentlymutatedin the revenue records} pursuant to the^{tibertygranted under the orderdated} 26.06.2021^{passedby the special Tribunal, by availingthe}

¶73

6

¶74

rerrredy through the Dharani/MeeSeva mechanism, culminating in issuance of Pattadar Passbook bearing No. T05060240912. The said mutation, having been effected after due process, had attained finality. The learned Single Judge, by setting aside the order dated 26.06.2A21, has unsettled an alrr:ady concluded position, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant.

¶75

Submissi,ons on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶76

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has a,lvanced his submissions as under:

¶77

i) That the deletion of the appellant's name was necessitated on account of a discrepancy in the extent of land in Sy.No.69. It was contended that as per the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55, the total extent of land in Sy.No.69 is Ac.l2.lo Gts

¶78

when:as the revenue records (pahanies) for the period 2009 to 2Ol9 reflected an extent of Ac.15. 10 Gts, resulting in an excess of Ac.3.OO Gts. According to the learned Government Pleader, the ar:tion taken was only to rectify this excess extent and to correct a clerical or record discrepancy. It was further submitted that such action was initiated based on an applicrrtion made by the 4th respondent.

¶79

/ J

¶80

7

¶81

Submissions^{on behalf of respoadentNo.4}

¶82

1(). Learned counsel for^{respondent No.4 has advanced his} submissions as under:

¶83

i) That the appetlant^{had suppressedmaterial facts,particularly} with regard to pending disputes^{relating to the sourceof title.} Reference was made to W.P.No.27215 of^{2O2l and W.A.No.1of} 2025, wherein the legality of the^{regulaizationproceedings in} favour of the original^pattadars, including^{the appellant's} vendor's predecessor-in-title, is under challenge.

¶84

ii) That the mutation in favour of^{the appellant was based on a} fraudulent transaction- The mutation application^{was allegedly} processed through Thalakondapally Mandal, which, according to the 4th respondent, has no territorial^{jurisdictionover the}

¶85

.^{subjectland. It was also submitted that an enquiry under the} Right to Information Act revealed that^{the office of the 3rd} respondent had no record of the^{online application bearing No.} uL23O0008458, on the basis of^{which the appellant claims} mutation.

¶86

iii) That while the appellant^{traces his title to Badavath Pentya in} respect of land in Sy.No. 69, he has^{fraudulentlysecured} mutation in respect of Sy.No.69lAA, which, according^{to the} 4th respondent, forms part of his land acquired under^{a Gift} Settlement Deed bearing Document^{No.2047of 2015 executed}

i t i

ix

8

r.

by B. somla Nayak. [t was submitted that the appe[ant is rrttempting to appropriate the land of the 4th respondent under the guise of a sub-division or survey number discrepancy.

¶92

iv) l'hat the order of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it sets aside the order dated 26.06.2021 and remands the matter to ttre speciar Tribunal, warrants no interference, as the dispute bt:tween the parties requires a comprehensive adjudication before the competent forum, where the inter se rights of all parties can be determined.

¶93

11- we have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the material on record.

¶94

Considerrrtion by this Court

¶95

L2. Upon a careful perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the special Tribunal did not form part of the chalrenge in the writ proceedings. The relief sought in the writ petition was confined to questioning the deletion of the appellant's name from the Bhu Bharati portal in the year 2025. The /is befcre the rearned single Judge, pertained to the legality of the subseq,ent administrative action of deletion, and not to the earlier adjuclication by the special Tribunar. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia, ought to have confined the adjudication to the issues arising from the preadings. The setting

¶96

9

¶97

':---

¶98

aside of the order dated 26.06.2021, which had neither been challenged nor directly put in issue, amounts to travelling beyond the scope of the lis.

¶99

Moreover, the said order had already been acted upon, pursuant to which the appellant's name came to be mutated in the revenue records. Interference with such an order, without the same being under challenge, and without affording a consideration on that aspect, constitutes a jurisdictional error, which warrants interference with the impugned order to the extent it relates to the setting aside of the order dated 26.06.2021.

¶100

L4. Rule 4 of the ROR Rules, 2O25 mandates that any request for correction in the record of rights must be processed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, which includes issuance of notice to all affected parties, conduct of an enquiry, and passing of a reasoned order. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deletion of the appellant's name was triggered by an online application. However, there is no material to demonstrate that notice was duly served on the appellant at his correct address.

¶101

It is pertinent to note that the rival claims of the parties disclose a dispute involving competing assertions of title. The appellant claims title through a chain of registered .transactions originating from Badavath Pengra, whereas the 4th respondent asserts rights over land in Sy.No.69lA on the strength of a Gift

n !

10

6<br>

settlem,ent Deed. Allegations have also been made regard.ing irregularities in mutation, discrepancies in survey numbers, and manipulation of revenue records. Such issues, involving adjudication of title and examination of competing documentary claims, ordinarily fall outs;de the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶106

Tht: statutory framework under the RoR Act, 2o2s provides for an appellate mechanism against orders passed by the Tahsildar. In terms of :he relevant Rules, an appeal lies to the RDo against any order affecting entries in the record of rights. The grievance of the appellant essentially arises from the action of the Tahsildar in deleting his name from the revenue records. Such action, having civil consequences, is amenable to scrutiny before the appellate authorit5r, which is competent to examine both the procedural compliance and the underlf ing claims, including directing verilication of records and, if necessary, conducting a survey.

¶107

In the' considered view of this court, the availability of such an efficacious s,tatutory remedy is a relevant factor while examining the nature of relief to be granted in the present proceedings.

¶108

Conclusion

¶109

For tht: foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that the order dated r6.L2.2o25 passed by the learned Single Judge

11

\ tt

It

in W.P.No.23O89 of 2025 is set aside, only to the limited extent whereby the order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal in Case No.D I 139 /2021, B 16337 /2OI9 was interfered with. Consequently, the said order the Special Tribunal dated 26.06.2021 shall stand restored.

¶114

In the result, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

¶115

i) The appellant is granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in deleting the appellant's name from the Bhu Bharati Portal in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.00 Gts in Sy.No.69/A (reflected as Sy.No.69/AA) of Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, before the competent appellant

¶116

. authorigr, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar Division, Ranga Reddy District, in accordance with Rule 14 of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Rules, 2025.

¶117

ii) The appellant shall file such an appeal within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶118

iii) Upon filing of such appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to issue notice to all the affected parties afford them an opportunity of hearing, permit them to lead documentary

¶119

I

¶120

L2

¶121

a.d oral evidence and dispose the appeal in accordance with la'v by way of a reasoned and speaking order within four (4) m<>nths from the date of filing of the appeal.

¶122

iv) Til'l such time the appeilate authorit5r renders its f-rnar decision, the status quo, as directed by this Court in the interim order dated LT.o3-2o26, shal continue to operate. The Tahsildar, Farcoqnagar Mandal, shall refrain from entertaining or acting upon any applications seeking further mutation or alteration in respect of the subject land during the pendency of the appr:al.

¶123

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs.

¶124

Sd,.A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

\

SECTION OFFICER

To,