Archakam Raghuramacharyulu v. State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.169 OF 2020 DATED : 06.01.2020 Between :

Archakam Raghuramacharyulu, S/o.Pujari Satyanarayanacharyulu, Aged about 65 yrs, R/o.Rajoli Village & Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District (Mahabubnagar District), Telangana State.

..... Petitioner And State of Telangana, Rep., by Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad & others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.169 OF 2020 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2.

According to petitioner, his father was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.4-02 guntas in Sy.No.19, Ac.423 guntas in Sy.No.454, Ac.10-05 guntas in Sy.No.491 and Ac.2423 guntas in Sy.No.541 of Rajoli Village, Jogulamba Gadwal District (Mahabubnagar District). His father died on 05.06.1993. After his death, petitioner came to be in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. As the pattadar pass books and title deeds were not issued, he made an application for issuance of the same. Petitioner further claims that he was issued pattadar pass books in respect of land in Sy.No.454 and 491, but he was not issued pattadar pass book in respect of remaining land. Therefore, he made an application on 06.06.2018 for issuance of the pattadar pass books and title deeds. But so far, the same is not considered, causing hardship to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3.

A copy of the representation stated to have been made on 06.06.2018 is enclosed as Ex.P.1. Further, as per the procedure evolved by the respondent-Government, a person seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records has to file application in form VI-A through online web portal and only such applications are processed in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana State Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act, 1971') and Rules made there under. Whereas, no such application was made by petitioner and no proof of submission of

- 3 - such application is filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tahsildar -2nd respondent is negligent in acting on the request of the petitioner.

4.

Having regard to the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application in prescribed form for mutation of his name in the revenue records. As and when such application is made, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate decision as warranted by law and communicate the same to the petitioner within six (6) weeks from the date of submission of such application. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 6th January, 2020 Rds