Adnan Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 896 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 896 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Adnan Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 7 January, 2025

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                       AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                       WRIT APPEAL No.38 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)

This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant invoking

the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the

order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.25466 of 2024, by which the writ petition filed by the

appellant was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant, and Mr.Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government

Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. With the consent of both parties, the writ appeal is disposed of

at the stage of admission.

4. Brief facts of the case:

4.1. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated are

that the appellant is claiming that he is owner and possessor of the

vacant land admeasuring Ac.46.00 gts. situated at Raidurg

Panmaktha, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Basing

on the Munthakab No.3232/1304 Fasli dated 17.01.1304 Fasli, the

appellant submitted online application on 03.08.2024 before

respondent No.2 for mutation of his name in the revenue records and

issue e-pattadar pass book. In spite of repeated requests made by

the appellant, respondent No.2 has not taken any steps. At that

juncture, the appellant filed the writ petition, namely W.P.No.25466

of 2024. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on

the ground that subject property comes within the purview of the

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the

provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books

Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'RoR Act') is not applicable and

the appellant has not given any explanation for delay in making

application for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Thus,

the appellant filed the writ appeal.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant:

5.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant

approached this Court and filed writ appeal seeking to grant relief for

non-consideration of the application dated 03.08.2024 and the

learned Single Judge ought to have directed respondent No.2 to

consider the application submitted by the appellant and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law, on the other hand learned

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

5.2. He further submitted that as on today, the subject land was not

converted from agriculture to non-agriculture and the provisions of

RoR Act is applicable.

6. Submissions of learned Government Pleader for Revenue:

6.1. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submitted that the

provisions of the RoR Act is not applicable on the ground that the

subject property comes within the purview of the GHMC and the

learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and there are

no grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.09.2024.

Analysis:

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and perused the material available on record.

Admittedly, the appellant is claiming rights over the subject property

basing on the Munthakab No.3232/1304 Fasli dated 17.01.1304

Fasli. The appellant after lapse of long period submitted online

application on 03.08.2024 before respondent No.2 to mutate his

name in the revenue records and for issuance of e-pattadar pass

book as per the provisions of the RoR Act. The appellant has not

given any reasons, much less valid reasons, why he has not

approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name and for

issuance of e-pattadar pass book, pursuant to the Munthakab dated