Barla Venkataiah v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.330 OF 2020 DATED : 08.01.2020 Between :

Barla Venkataiah S/o.Late Jangaiah, Aged about 43 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.H.No.1-3-183/4/134, SBI Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Kawadiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

..... Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

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

- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.330 OF 2020 ORDER:

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

2.

Petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.329/7 and Ac.0-31 guntas in Sy.No.329/6 of Prathapsingaram Village and Grampanchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under sale deeds, dated 26.12.2011 and 24.05.2012 respectively. He claims that his vendor was issued pattadar pass book and title deeds. Pursuant to his purchase, he made a representation to the Tahsildar-4th respondent to issue pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour. He also approached the Revenue Divisional Officer3rd respondent, ventilating his grievance, through a representation dated 18.02.2017. The 3rd respondent directed the Tahsildar-4th respondent to take necessary action on the issue. Alleging inaction in issuing the pattadar pass books and title deeds, this writ petition is filed.

3.

As seen from the material on record, petitioner claims to have submitted representation on 18.02.2017, but the same is not placed on record.

4.

However, as per the procedure evolved by the respondentGovernment, a person seeking mutation of his/her 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

- 3 - 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 such application is filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tahsildar -4th respondent is negligent in acting upon the request of 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 4th 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 8th January, 2020 Rds