Telangana High Court
Kondakallu Bharath Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9111 of 2025
ORDER:
It is stated that the petitioner, along with his mother
Vijaya Lakshmi, has instituted a suit for partition vide
O.S.No.884 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the said suit was
decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 11.07.2011. It is
further stated that, in terms of the preliminary decree, final
decree was passed in I.A.No.146 of 2014 and the division of the
suit schedule property was made by metes and bounds. It is
further stated that seeking implementation of the final decree
proceedings in I.A.No.146 of 2014, the petitioner filed an
application under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in
Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "the ROR Act,
1971") for mutation and consequential amendment of record of
rights. It is further stated that pending consideration of the
said application, ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and replaced by
the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020
(for short "the Act 9 of 2020"). It is further stated that,
meanwhile, the unofficial respondents have instituted a suit for
perpetual injunction vide OS.No.335 of 2020 on the file of the
VII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The
CVBR, J
Wp_9111_2025
grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 has passed
the impugned order advising the petitioner to agitate their rights
before the civil Court in the pending suit and then, after
outcome of the final orders in the above suit, approach the
revenue authorities, for redressal of their grievance.
2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner; Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the
admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this
writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondents is
dispensed with.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
contended that, in terms of the final decree, the trial Court has
already delivered the possession to the petitioner and mere
pendency of the suit for injunction filed by the unofficial
respondents does not take away his right in implementation of
the final decree proceedings in the revenue records.
4. In view of the above submissions and since it is stated
that the petitioner has already obtained final decree in
I.A.No.146 of 2014 in O.S.No.884 of 2007, dated 16.10.2019,
CVBR, J
Wp_9111_2025
this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be
met if respondent No.3 is directed to examine the case of the
petitioner, if any application is being submitted by him under
Section 7 of the Act, 9 of 2020 and if the said application
complies with all the requirements of the Act 9 of 2020,
consider the same after issuing notice to the petitioner as well
as the interested and effected parties and pass a reasoned order
in accordance with law and communicate the same to the
petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of
such application.
5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
26.03.2025
gkv
