Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1429 (TS)

Gollena Shyam Sunder v. State of Telangana

2025-11-07

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in not issuing E-Patta pass book under Section 6 of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 in respect of petitioner's ancestral agricultural land an extent of Ac.2-26.80 Gts. in Survey No.142/1A/1/1 situated at Kothapet Revenue Village, Kaghaznagar Mandal of K.B. Asifabad District in pursuance of petitioner's online application for passbook data correction vide Application No. 2200044601 dated 13.06.2022 and offline representation dated 14.03.2023 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, suffers from failure of exercising the jurisdiction vested in the respondent No.3 and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently declare the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the endorsement vide proceeding No.D2/TM33/2200044601/2023 dated 11.03.2023 by rejecting the petitioner's application is also illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and further set aside the same endorsement vide Proceeding No.D2/TM33/2200044601/2023 dated 11.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3....” 2. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Kulkarni, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Venu Cheggam and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy. Though notice is ordered, none appeared for the respondent No.6. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of respondent No.3, in failing to record the petitioner’s name on the Dharani online portal and in not issuing an E-Patta passbook under Section 6 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, in respect of his ancestral agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-26.80 Gts., in Survey No.142/1A/1/1, situated at Kothapet Revenue Village, Kaghaznagar Mandal, K.B. Asifabad District despite his online application for passbook data correction and subsequent offline representation dated 14.03.2023 is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice: (a) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 vide proceedings No.D2/TM33/2200044601/2023 dated 11.03.2023, rejecting his application, be declared illegal and consequently set aside. During the Land Record Updation Programme (LRUP), the petitioner’s name was not uploaded on the Dharani portal for the aforesaid land. Instead, the name of one Smt.Parvathi Bayilani, W/o.Eshwar Das Bailani, was erroneously recorded in 2019-20 without any supporting documentary evidence, along with Survey No.139/5 under Khata No.100922, marked as Non-DS. Such wrongful entry, made without due verification, is contrary to the provisions of Revenue Law and violative of natural justice. (b) Aggrieved by the said error, the petitioner submitted an online application No.2200044601 dated 13.06.2022 for passbook data correction. The Tahsildar, Kaghaznagar Mandal, after due verification, recommended the correction, confirming that the erroneous entry in Dharani was due to a technical error. Despite such confirmation, the District Collector, K.B. Asifabad District, vide Proceedings No.D2/TM33/2200044601/2023 dated 11.03.2023, rejected the petitioner’s request, citing the existing entry of another person’s name in Dharani. The tahsildar’s report, however, clearly established that Smt.Parvathi Bayilani has no connection with the subject property, holds no land in the said survey number and has never laid any claim to it. The petitioner’s name stands in the revenue records as the independent pattadar and peaceful possessor since 1988. Hence, the impugned endorsement has been issued without application of mind and is liable to be quashed. (c) The petitioner’s mother, Late Smt.Gollena Venkatamma, W/o.Late Sri Gollena Balaiah, was the original pattadar and absolute owner of Ac.8-45 cents in Survey No.142, Kothapet Village, Kaghaznagar Mandal, as reflected in pahani records of 1988-89 and 1990-91. Upon her demise, the property was partitioned among her sons as per the ROR Act and the mutation was duly implemented in 2001-02. Under the said partition, the petitioner received Ac.3-08 cents, recorded under Khata No.31 in his name as pattadar and has since been cultivating the land for livelihood. (d) Subsequently, the petitioner sold Ac.0-40 cents through a registered sale deed, leaving Ac.2-26.80 Gts., which continues in his name as pattadar under Survey No.142/1A/1/1 and Khata No.31. His ownership and possession are continuously reflected in Pahani records for 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2017-18. Since 1988, the petitioner’s family has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. No sale or transfer has been made in respect of the remaining Ac.2-26.80 Gts. I-B form was issued in his name and his entries remained intact until 2017-18. (e) The third party, Smt.Parvathi Bayilani, owns only 240 Sq.Yds. Since 1988, the petitioner’s family has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. No sale or transfer has been made in respect of the remaining Ac.2-26.80 Gts. I-B form was issued in his name and his entries remained intact until 2017-18. (e) The third party, Smt.Parvathi Bayilani, owns only 240 Sq.Yds. in Survey No.139/5 and holds no land in Survey No.142. Yet, she has been deriving Government benefits over the petitioner’s property without any lawful title or documentary support. Due to a typographical or technical error, the petitioner’s land in Survey No.142/1A/1/1 (Ac.2-26.80 Gts.,) was wrongly linked to Khata No.100922 instead of Khata No.31. The erroneous entry requires deletion and rectification. The petitioner continues to cultivate and enjoy the subject property but is deprived of Government benefits because of the incorrect entry. He lawfully inherited the land through succession and seeks deletion of the wrong entry and mutation of his name as pattadar in Dharani records. The respondent No.3, by rejecting the petitioner’s application and refusing to issue an E-Patta Passbook under Section 6 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, in respect of his ancestral agricultural land, has acted arbitrarily and illegally. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions to respondent No.3 to rectify the records in Dharani and to issue an E-Patta Passbook in his favour for the land admeasuring Ac.2-26.80 Gts., in Survey No.142/1A/1/1, Kothapet Village, Kaghaznagar Mandal, K. B. Asifabad District. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submits that the name of the unofficial respondent is reflected in the records relating to the subject property claimed by the petitioner and therefore, the 3 rd respondent has rejected the petitioner’s claim. He further submits that, if any changes are required to be made in the records, the official respondents will take appropriate action in accordance with law after issuing notices to the concerned and affected parties and conducting a physical hearing. 5. He further submits that, if any changes are required to be made in the records, the official respondents will take appropriate action in accordance with law after issuing notices to the concerned and affected parties and conducting a physical hearing. 5. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has established that the subject land admeasuring Ac.2.26 Gts., in Survey No.142/1A/1/1 situated at Kothapet Revenue Village, Kaghaznagar Mandal, K.B. Asifabad District, is ancestral property, duly reflected in earlier pahani and revenue records standing in the name of his mother and subsequently inherited by him through succession. The tahsildar’s report, recommending correction of the record and confirming that the wrong entry in Dharani portal occurred due to a technical error, substantiates the petitioner’s claim. No contrary material has been produced by the respondents to disprove the said report or to show any lawful title of Smt.Parvathi Bayilani over the subject land. The action of the third respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that another person’s name appears in the Dharani database, without examining the authenticity of such entry or the supporting record, reflects non- application of mind and is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice: (a) The Dharani portal is intended to maintain accuracy in land records. When an error of entry is duly reported and supported by competent verification, refusal to correct such error defeats the object of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned endorsement vide Proceedings No.D2/TM33/2200044601/2023 dated 11.03.2023 issued by the District Collector, K.B. Asifabad District, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement dated 11.03.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to rectify the land records in the Dharani portal by entering the petitioner’s name as pattadar in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.26 guntas in Survey No.142/1A/1/1 of Kothapet Village, Kaghaznagar Mandal, K.B. Asifabad District, after duly issuing notices to all the affected parties, including respondent No.6 and affording them an opportunity of being heard. The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.