Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1303 (TS)

Varla Bhaskar v. State of Telangana

2025-10-27

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the Respondents Nos.2 to 6 more particularly the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in issuing: (i) impugned proceedings/orders vide Lr.A/71/2022, dated 27.06.2025. (ii) 38-E certificates U/s.38-E of the Telangana Tenants and agricultural lands Act, 1950. (iii) Entries in revenue Records/Bhu Bharathi. (iv) Patta Passbooks in favour of the respondents Nos.7 to 11 without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary unjust violative of the Principles of Natural Justice violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the Petitioners and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions contemplated under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2025 and consequently set aside: (i) impugned proceedings/orders vide Lr.A/71/2022 dated 27.06.2025 (ii) 38-E certificates U/s.38-E of the Telangana Tenants and agricultural lands Act, 1950 (iii) Entries in revenue Records/Bhu Bharathi (iv) Patta Passbooks in favour of the respondents Nos. 7 to 11...” 2. Heard Sri S.Lakshmi Kanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and P.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 11 and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of land to an extent of Acs.18.06 guntas in Sy.No.112, situated at Ejipur Village, Kosgi Mandal, Narayanapet District, having pattabooks and also the names of the petitioners are reflected in the revenue records, to an extent of their respective lands in Sy.No.112, which are subdivided accordingly and the same is also reflected in Bhu Bharati Portal. 4. One Rukma Reddy was the original owner, pattadar of the subject property. Later on, he sold it to one Varla Narsimulu, by executing an absolute registered sale deed in the year 1964 and subsequently, his name was recorded in the revenue records. Thereafter, pursuant to oral partition between V.Narsimulu and his brother, the subject land has been partitioned into two parts V.Narsimulu to an extent of Acs.9.04 guntas in Sy.No.112/AA/AA and V.Narayana to an extent of Acs.9.02 guntas in Sy.No.112/A/1, the respondent- authorities also issued pattedar passbooks. Thereafter, pursuant to oral partition between V.Narsimulu and his brother, the subject land has been partitioned into two parts V.Narsimulu to an extent of Acs.9.04 guntas in Sy.No.112/AA/AA and V.Narayana to an extent of Acs.9.02 guntas in Sy.No.112/A/1, the respondent- authorities also issued pattedar passbooks. While the matter stood, respondent No.4 under the guise of compliance of order dated 03.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.32035 of 2021 has issued orders in proceedings vide Lr.A/71/2022, dated 27.06.2025, wherein respondent No.4 has conferred ownership rights in the script of subject land to an extent of Acs.16.02 guntas in Sy.No.112 in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 11 by issuing 38-E certificates under Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenants and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 03.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.32035 of 2021, after more than three years, respondent No.5 suddenly issued a communication dated 10.02.2025 to respondent No.4, wherein the names of the petitioners were reflected as the pattadars and possessors of their respective extents in the subject land. But the reason best known to respondent No.4, a notice vide No.A/71/2022, dated 22.02.2025 was sent to petitioner No.1 instead of all the interested parties. Upon receiving the same, petitioner No.1 enquired with the other petitioners and has acknowledged that all concerned parties were not put on notice as per the directions of this Court. Thereafter, all the petitioners together have submitted a reply dated 04.03.2025 placing their objections before respondent No.5. Despite their being prima facie evidential material submitted to respondent No.5, an order dated 27.06.2025 vide Proc.Lr.No.A/71/2022 was passed by respondent No.5 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners and has issued certificates under Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenants and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (‘for short, the Act, 1950’). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an Appeal under Section 90 of the Act, 1950 before respondent No.3 seeking to set aside the order dated 27.06.2025. 6. Petitioner No.1 was served with an endorsement vide No.RK/51/2021, dated 28.04.2021, wherein, respondent No.4 has clearly stated that there are no PT registers on Sy.No.112/A/1 which is also part and parcel of the subject land and hence no such information can be provided. 6. Petitioner No.1 was served with an endorsement vide No.RK/51/2021, dated 28.04.2021, wherein, respondent No.4 has clearly stated that there are no PT registers on Sy.No.112/A/1 which is also part and parcel of the subject land and hence no such information can be provided. Petitioner No.1 has also made an application before respondent No.5 to furnish the information of the protected tenants in the subject property, respondent No.5 has issued an endorsement vide No.RK/407/2025, dated 07.08.2025 stating that the entire protect tenants register itself is unavailable and hence the same cannot be provided. It is evident that the respondents are high handedly and arbitrarily, acting hand in glove with the unofficial respondents. 7. While the matter stood, unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 11 with the active cooperation of respondent Nos.4 and 5 are attempting to alienate the subject land under the guise of 38-E ownership granted by respondent No.4, in order to effect rights and possession of the petitioners herein permanently and irreparably. Under the above circumstances petitioner No.13 was compelled to approach respondent No.5 with a representation dated 14.08.2025, requesting respondent No.5 not to entertain any mutations, registrations or transactions effecting the entries of the revenue records while Appeal is pending before respondent No.3, as persistent efforts are being made by the unofficial respondents to alienate the subject property in greedy. But to the utter surprise and dismay respondent No.5 neither replied nor responded, paying any heed to the representation dated 14.08.2025 made before him. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are left with no alternative remedy except approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 11 would submit that the official respondents upon thorough verification has passed 38-E certificate in favour of the unofficial respondents. Aggrieved by the said 38-E proceedings, the petitioners filed preferred an Appeal under Section 90 of the Act, 1950 before respondent No.3, which is pending for adjudication. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the Appeal filed by the petitioner is pending for adjudication before respondent No.3. The petitioners without waiting for the outcome of the said Appeal have rushed to this Court at a premature stage by filing the present writ petition. Hence, seeks to dismiss the same. 10. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the Appeal filed by the petitioner is pending for adjudication before respondent No.3. The petitioners without waiting for the outcome of the said Appeal have rushed to this Court at a premature stage by filing the present writ petition. Hence, seeks to dismiss the same. 10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to adjudicate the Appeal filed by the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, by putting the petitioners, respondent Nos.6 to 11 and all affected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. If, respondent No.3 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioners, he shall assign specific reasons, pass a reasoned order, communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioners and complete the said exercise as expeditiously as possible. Parties to this writ petition shall maintain status quo order obtained as on date in respect of the subject property in all respects till finalising the Appeal filed by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.