Telangana High Court
Thara Chand Ajumera vs The State Of Telangana on 5 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6701 of 2025
ORDER:
It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and
possessors of the agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.17.31
guntas in Sy.Nos.166, 167, 168, 171 and 172 and its sub-
division numbers, situated at Goleti Village, Rebbena Mandal,
Komuram Bheem Asifabad District. It is further stated that the
petitioners' grandfather by name Ajmera Devula Naik was the
protected tenant of the land admeasuring Acs.29.38 guntas in
Sy.No.70 (old), corresponding to new Sy.Nos.166, 167, 168, 171
and 172 and his name was also recorded as protected tenant as
per the Tenancy Register maintained under the provisions of the
Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short
"the Act"). It is further stated that after the death of the
petitioners' grandfather, the name of the petitioners' father by
name Dhll Nayak was recorded as protected tenant in all the
revenue records. It is further stated that when the land which
is in occupation of the petitioners was forcibly taken possession
by the successors of the pattadars, the father of the petitioners
was constrained to file an application under Section 32 of the
Act for delivery of the subject lands. It is further stated that the
CVBR, J
Wp_6701_2025
Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry handed over the possession
of the land admeasuring Acs.17.3 guntas to the petitioners'
father and the remaining land to other protected tenants vide
Proceedings No.A/812/97, dated 18.12.1997. It is further
stated that aggrieved by the said orders, the contesting
respondents therein have filed an appeal under Section 90 of
the Act before the Joint Collector. It is further stated that the
Joint Collector, Adilabad, vide order, dated 20.02.2010 in Case
No.D4/TA/3/1998, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
order, dated 18.12.1997 passed by the Tahsildar under Section
32 of the Act and the said order has attained finality. The
grievance of the petitioners is that even after finalization of the
proceedings issued by the Tahsildar under Section 32 of the
Act, the respondents are neither granted the certificate under
Section 38-E of the Act nor mutate the names of the petitioners
by granting Pouthi Izafa and consequential issuance of pattadar
passbook under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land
and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short "the Act 9 of
2020").
2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government
CVBR, J
Wp_6701_2025
Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and
with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed at the
admission stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
contended that since the respondents are not mutating the
names of the petitioners and non-issuance of pattadar pass
book, the petitioners are not in a position to enjoy their absolute
rights over the subject property and also unable to receive
various incentives sanctioned by the Government as investment
subsidies.
4. Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue, has not disputed the orders passed by the Tahsildar
under Section 32 of the Act and also not disputed that the said
order has attained finality by dismissal of the appeal by the
Joint Collector. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further
submitted that as the petitioners have not taken steps under
the provisions of the Act before the appropriate authority for
issuance of the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act i.e.,
ownership certificate, the petitioners are not entitled for
mutation and consequential issuance of pattadar passbooks as
per the provisions of the Act 9 of 2020.
CVBR, J
Wp_6701_2025
5. There is no dispute that the petitioners' grandfather name
was recorded as protected tenant in the revenue records after
his death, possession of the subject land was handed over to the
petitioners' father by the Tahsildar vide proceedings, dated
18.12.1997, which order attained finality by the dismissal of the
appeal by the Joint Collector. Further, as seen from the record
the petitioners have not made any application under the
provisions of the Act recognizing their tenancy rights by
granting ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. It
is settled law that as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in Sada v. Tahsildar, Utnoor 1 there is no limitation for
making an application for the protected tenants or their
successors-in-interest either for recognizing their rights under
the provisions of the Act or for consequential mutation in the
revenue records. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
dispose of this writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioners to
make appropriate application under the provisions of the Act for
issuance of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act
and on such application being submitted by the petitioners and
the same is complied with all the requirements of the Act and
the petitioners are entitled for issuance of the same, respondent
1987 (2) ALT 749 FB
CVBR, J
Wp_6701_2025
No.3-the Revenue Divisional Officer, is directed to examine the
said application strictly in terms of the Act and the Rules made
therein and pass appropriate orders. In any event, if the
petitioners are not entitled for issuance of certificate under
Section 38-E of the Act, respondent No.3 is directed to pass a
reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners
within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of
such application.
6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
05.03.2025
gkv
