Mulakalapally Anitha, v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., State Of T.S.,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16657 OF 2018 DATED : 01.05.2018 Between :

Mulakalapally Anitha, W/o.Ramakrishna, Age 37 yrs, Occu : Agriculture, R/o.Huzurnagar Town & Mandal, Suryapet District, T.S.

..

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

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16657 of 2018 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue appearing for respondents.

2.

The prayer in the writ petition is to declare the action of 4th & 5th respondents in illegally interfering in the land of petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.144/A4 of Huzurnagar Revenue village and mandal, Suryapet District.

3.

According to petitioner he is the owner of property; pattadar pass books and title deeds are granted to him and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, petitioner now apprehends that the 5th respondent who is none other than the brother-in-law of petitioner with the active help of Sri Gayam Veera Reddy, presently working as Revenue Inspector is trying to dispossess the petitioner and trying to change the revenue records, causing undue hardship and suffering to the petitioner. 4.

The facts briefly noted above itself would disclose that as of now no adverse decision is taken by the revenue authorities. If what is alleged by the petitioner is true i.e., the 5th respondent is trying to dispossess or seeking to change the revenue records, it is the dispute between petitioner and 5th respondent. 5.

Except for making a vague allegation of involvement of 4th respondent who incidentally working as revenue inspector, no material is brought on record to show in what manner the 4th

- 3 - respondent is involved or affecting the right of petitioner by misusing his position. Apparently, it is a pre-emptive litigation to prevent the persons from filing appropriate application before the revenue authorities under Telangana State Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. 6.

Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as and when the cause of action arises, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

___________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 1st May, 2018 Rds