Telangana High Court
Jadav Seetharam vs The State Of Telangana on 6 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.11161 of 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, more particularly a Writ of Certiorari,
quashing the impugned Collector's proceedings No.D1/5752/2024,
dated 08.01.2025 and Tahsildar's letter No .A/635/2024, dated
05.12.2024, in so far as they pertain to petitioners' agricultural lands
situated in Kalwa Village, Dilawarpur Mandal, Nirmal District,
bearing Survey Nos.750/2, 748/A/1, 749/A/2, 749/A/1, 750/1
and 751/A/A to the extents of Ac.1-20 guntas, Ac.0-33 guntas, Ac.0-
07 guntas, Ac.0-18 guntas, Ac.0-39 guntas and Ac.1-30 guntas
respectively and to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 4 in
cancelling the pattas and mutating the said lands in favor of
respondent No.5 without issuing notice and without giving an
opportunity of hearing and solely basing on ex-parte decree in
O.S.No.35 of 2020, where petitioners are not even parties to the suit,
as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar
Passbooks Act, 2020..."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. L.Ravinder,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner
No.2 is not a writ petitioner in W.P.No.10276 of 2025, in which this
Court passed an order dated 04.04.2025, as extracted below:
"Since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
petitioner No.1 has already filed I.A.No.54 of 2024 seeking to
set aside the ex-parte judgment /decree, he is at liberty to
make appropriate application seeking correction of the entries
in the revenue records, after disposal of the said I.A. As it is
settled that the ex-parte decree is also a valid decree for
enforceable, the petitioner No.1 has not made out any case and
the observations made are equally binding on petitioner Nos.2
and 3, as they have joined with the petitioner by filing common
writ petition, and if they are aggrieved with the orders of the
ex-parte decree, they are at liberty to file an application before
the Executing Court.
With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs."
4. While considering the fact that the writ petition has been filed
challenging the proceedings No.D1/5752/2024, dated 08.01.2025 and
Tahsildar's letter No. A/635/2024, dated 05.12.2025, and even in this
writ petition as well, the same orders have been challenged.
5. It is further submitted that the order passed by this Court in the
said writ petition was not on merits, and that the present second
petitioner was not a petitioner in W.P.No.10276 of 2025.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue, while producing a copy of the order passing in W.P.No.10276
of 2025, submitted that the 1st petitioner herein was the 2nd petitioner
and the 2nd petitioner herein was the 3rd petitioner in W.P.No.10276 of
2025. It is contended that having already filed the said writ petition
challenging the same proceedings, and this Court having recently
passed orders therein, the present writ petition filed again on the same
cause of action is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that if
the petitioners were aggrieved by the earlier order, the proper course
would have been to challenge the same before the appropriate forum,
instead of filing a fresh writ petition on similar grounds. Hence, seeks
to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. This Court having heard the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue,
and upon perusal of the record, finds that the petitioners were
unsuccessful in W.P.No.10276 of 2025. The present writ petition has
been filed without disclosing any fresh cause of action, except by filing
an additional affidavit on 10.04.2025, which has been taken on record
vide U.S.R.No.40885 of 2025.
8. This Court does not find any change in circumstances
warranting reconsideration of the same issue already adjudicated
upon. The proceedings challenged herein are the very same as those
questioned in the earlier writ petition, which has been dismissed by
this Court. Filing the present writ petition, despite knowledge of the
earlier dismissal and by the same counsel representing the petitioners,
amounts to misuse of the judicial process and results in wastage of
the precious time of this Court.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending,
in this petition, shall stand closed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 06.11.2025
Nsk
