Telangana High Court
V. Prakash Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9668 OF 2026
DATE:01-04-2026
Between:
V. Prakash Reddy
.... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad,
and three others.
... Respondents
ORDER:(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the Bhu Bharati application No.2500165661 dated 30.12.2025 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.1-08 guntas in Survey No.5/2/1 situated at Gadwal Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.
2. It is submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.3-26 guntas in Survey No.5 of Gadwal Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. That after the death of the grandfather of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner viz., V. Satyanarayana Reddy and his brothers partitioned the land. In the partition, the land to an ::2::
extent of Acs.1-08 guntas fell to the share of the father of the petitioner, and his name was recorded in the pahanies. The father of the petitioner died on 23.09.1983 leaving behind the petitioner and others as his legal heirs.
3. It is submitted that without prior notice, the name of the father of the petitioner was deleted from the revenue records in respect of the subject land that fell to his share. The petitioner made application No.2500165661 dated 30.12.2025 for restoring the name of his father in the revenue records. The application was rejected without assigning any reasons.
4. Heard Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, and perused the material available on record.
5. The rejection order filed as Ex.P1 shows that no reasons have been assigned for rejection of the application of the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that when an order is passed by a quasi- judicial authority determining the rights of the parties and whereby rights of the parties are affected, it is incumbent upon the authority to record the reasons. Thus, for the sole reason of impugned order ::3::
being passed without recording reasons and in violation of principles of natural justice, it is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned rejection order is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to re- consider the Bhu Bharati application No.2500165661 dated 30.12.2025 of the petitioner, for incorporating the name of his father in the revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.1-08 guntas in Survey No.5/2/1 situated at Gadwal Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, by issuing notice to the petitioner and other interested persons and by affording an opportunity of hearing to them, and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: 01.04.2026 vv