Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1557 (TS)

Godugu Pinna Rajamani v. State of Telangana

2025-11-18

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : E.V. VENUGOPAL, J. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of Respondents No.2 to 4 action of Respondents No.2 to 4 in rejecting the Petitioners mutation Application No.2500003948 in respect of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts in situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District, without assigning any reasons, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation Article 300-A of Constitution of India, against the provisions of ROR Act and against all settled principal of law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner in all revenue record and to issue e pass book in favour of the petitioner, in respect of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts in situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District and to pass....” 2. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that originally the brother of the petitioner namely late Kontham Mallaiah purchased an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District, through a registered sale deed bearing document No.1137 of 1979, dated 06.06.1979. In pursuant to the above sale deed, Kontham Mallaiah name was mutated in all the revenue records and the revenue officials also issued pattedar passbook and title deed in his favour. Kontham Mallaiah died on 13.05.2015. During his lifetime, he executed an unregistered sale deed dated 17.09.2010 on Rs.100/- stamp paper bequeathing the entire property to an extent of Acs.0.20 guntas in favour of the petitioner. The said will deed was also attested by the petitioner’s elder sister namely Smt. Jakkula Amruthamma and another near relative, Sri Kontham Narsaiah. The said will deed satisfied the ingredients of Section 63 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925. 4. After knowing about the will deed executed by her deceased brother, the petitioner taken possession of the said property and cultivating the same by raising crops from time to time and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same even as on date. 4. After knowing about the will deed executed by her deceased brother, the petitioner taken possession of the said property and cultivating the same by raising crops from time to time and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same even as on date. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for mutation of the subject property in her favour under Dharani Portal on 23.03.2025 and also under Bhu-Bharati vide dated 01.05.2025. The petitioner also made subsequent application enclosing all relevant documents during Revenue Sadassulu on 18.06.2025 with a request to mutate her name in the revenue records and also to issue pattedar passbook in her favour. 5. In pursuant to the above application, respondent No.4 sought legal opinion from the government pleader and the government pleader issued letter vide Lr.No.2/April/2025, dated 11.04.2025 and thereby clarified and opined that the mutation can be affected on the basis of the unregistered will deed in respect of the subject property. There is no dispute about the execution of will deed and entitlement of the petitioner over the subject property under the said will deed. The petitioner’s sister also gave affidavit stating that she had no objection in mutating the name of the petitioner as per will deed. The petitioner also obtained family member certificate dated 23.04.2016 from respondent No.4. 6. Respondent No.3 issued notice dated 19.07.2025 and called objections if any vide Notice No.B/467/2025-RS2500516155. Further, the notice was displayed in the notice board of grampanchayt Duddeda Village and Tahsildar office Kondapaka. In pursuant to the above said notice no objections were received by the respondents till date. In pursuant to the above notice of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 19.07.2025 the petitioner also got issued General Notice which was published in Eenadu Newspaper on 15.09.2025. The petitioner is under impression that the respondents would mutate the name of the petitioner and shall issue e-pattedar passbook in her favour. Surprisingly, the said application was rejected by respondent No.3 without assigning any reason or passing any orders disclosing the reasons for such rejection. The mutation application is rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 7. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 after rejection of the above application and requested to furnish the reasons but not disclosed anything therefore the petitioner was constrained to make an application under RTI on 27.09.2025. The mutation application is rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 7. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 after rejection of the above application and requested to furnish the reasons but not disclosed anything therefore the petitioner was constrained to make an application under RTI on 27.09.2025. In pursuant to the above application, respondent No.3 issued information vide Letter dated 08.10.2025 and stated as per the report of Girdhawar there is no physical possession available, hence may be rejected. 8. Section 7 of the Telangana Bhu-Bharati Act , 2025 deals with mutation in case of will and succession. Under the proviso no order refusing to make an amendment in record of rights shall be passed unless the person making such application has been given an opportunity of making a representation in that behalf. It is also very clear from Section 7 (4) that every order passed under this Section shall be communicated to the persons concerned. But no such order was communicated and no opportunity was given before passing the rejection order. That viewing from many angles the impugned rejection order is liable to be set aside. There is no provision to speak about the physical possession of the person claiming under the Will, therefore, rejecting on the ground of no physical possession is not at all sustainable and liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to mutate the name of the petitioner in all revenue records and to issue pattedar passbook else the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injuries. hence, the present writ petition. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the case of the petitioner is under consideration. The respondent-authorities will consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 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 the respondents- authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitioner on notice and affording her an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and as per the procedure laid down under law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.