[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Poreddy Nagabhushanam vs The Tahsildar on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.37658 of 2018
Dated:15.04.2026
Between:
Poreddy Nagabhushanam
...Petitioner
And:
The Tahsildar, Cherial
Mandal, Siddipet District
and others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the
orders dated 08.07.2017, vide proceedings No.B/3513/2017, of respondent
No.1, mutating the name of respondent No.6 in the revenue records in
respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.313/A and 313/E
of Cherial Village and Mandal, Siddipet District, without issuing any notice
to the petitioner and in spite of pendency of the suit in O.S.No.127/2011 on
the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon and rejection of the
application, vide Memo, dated 19.06.2015, as illegal and arbitrary and for
consequential relief.
LNA, J
2. Heard Sri B.Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Though, Sri Ananthula
Ravinder, advocate, entered appearance, for respondent No.6, none appeared
on his behalf.
3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that lands
admeasuring Acs.6.01 gts in Sy.No.313, Ac.0.06 gts in Sy.No.343/C,
Ac.0.18 gts in Sy.No.379/B and Ac.0.08 gts in Sy.No.398/A, total
admeasuring Acs.6.33 gts, situated at Cherial Village and Mandal, Siddipet
District, constitute joint family property; that the petitioner filed a suit-
O.S.No.127 of 2011 for partition and separate possession against his family
members, including respondent No.5 (arrayed as Defendant No.3 in the said
suit), before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon; that the petitioner
also filed I.A.No. 176 of 2011 and the trial Court by order dated 11.07.2011,
granted ad interim injunction restraining the respondents therein, including
respondent No.5 herein, from alienating the subject property and later, by
order dated 21.10.2013, the said injunction order was extended until further
orders.
3.1. It is further averred that though respondent Nos.5 and 6 were fully
aware of subsistence of injunction order passed by trial Court restraining
respondent No.5 from alienating the property, in violation of the said order,
LNA, J
respondent No.5 executed a sale deed dated 22.07.2014, conveying an extent
of Acs.3.00 gts in Sy.Nos.313/A and 313/E in favour of respondent No.6;
and that respondent No.6 approached respondent No.1 seeking mutation of
his name in the revenue records. It is further averred that the petitioner
submitted representations dated 31.10.2014 and 01.06.2016 informing
respondent No.1 about the pendency of the civil suit and requested not to
effect any mutation in favour of respondent No.6.
3.2. It is further averred that initially, respondent No.1, considering the
petitioner's objections and the pendency of the civil suit, rejected the
application for mutation, vide Memo in Rc.No.B-2313/2015 dated
19.06.2015. However, respondent No.6 once again approached respondent
No.1 for mutation of the revenue entries and despite the petitioner's repeated
objections, respondent No.1, vide proceedings dated 08.07.2017, mutated the
name of respondent No.6 in revenue records in respect of the subject
property. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed an appeal before
respondent No.2, but, respondent No.2, vide orders in Case No. D/516/2018
dated 30.07.2018, disposed of the appeal without conducting a proper
enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed present Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier, respondent
No.1, after due consideration of the petitioner's objections and the pendency
LNA, J
of O.S. No.127 of 2011, rightly rejected the application of respondent No.6
for mutation, vide Memo dated 19.06.2015 in Rc.No.B-2313/2015. The said
order attained finality, as respondent No.6 has not preferred any appeal
against the same. He further submitted that once an order rejecting mutation
has attained finality, the same cannot be re-agitated and the authority cannot
review or revisit its own concluded decision in the absence of any statutory
power of review. Hence, the subsequent proceedings of respondent No.1,
dated 08.07.2017, are wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to law.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in appeal, respondent
No.2 failed to appreciate that the earlier rejection order passed by respondent
No.1 has attained finality and therefore, the subsequent application
submitted by respondent No.6 for mutation ought not to have been
entertained and therefore, the order of mutation effected in favour of
respondent No.6 is unsustainable; and that the appellate authority without
conducting proper enquiry and without considering the illegality committed
by respondent No.1, disposed of the appeal by the impugned order and
hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that
respondent No.1 has entertained the application submitted that by respondent
No.6 based on the registered sale deed executed in his favour and effected
LNA, J
mutation in his favour. She further submitted that respondent No.2 has
rightly disposed of the appeal on the ground that civil suit is pending
between the parties and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order passed by respondent No.2 and the Writ Petition devoid of
any merit is liable to be dismissed.
6. Perusal of record discloses that during the subsistence of the
injunction order, respondent No.5 executed a registered sale deed dated
22.07.2014 in favour of respondent No.6, alienating the subject property.
Though the initial request of respondent No.6 seeking mutation of revenue
records was rejected by respondent No.1, taking note of the pendency of
civil dispute and the objections raised by the petitioner, the same authority
subsequently, proceeded to effect mutation in favour of respondent No.6
vide proceedings dated 08.07.2017. In fact, under the provisions of the ROR
Act, respondent No.1 is not vested with the power to review or revise his
own orders.
7. Respondent No.2-appellate authority without taking into consideration
the injunction orders passed by the trial Court and the act of respondent No.1
in effecting mutation during the subsistence of the injunction orders in the
pending suit, has disposed of the appeal in a mechanical manner. Thus, the
impugned order of respondent No.2 in disposing of the appeal filed by the
LNA, J
petitioner without adverting to the subsistence of injunction order restraining
alienation in respect of the subject property, amounts to perpetration of the
illegality committed by respondent No.1 in not adhering to the said
injunction order, which is not sustainable.
8. Earlier, when a similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in
Writ Petition No.14509 of 2021 (R.Ram Reddy vs State of Telangana), a
learned single Judge of this Court, vide orders dated 1.07.2021, has held as
hereunder:-
"However, it is apt to note word of caution that
whenever an injunction order is passed by the civil
Court or interlocutory order by this Court imposing any
restraint on parties to the litigation and/or on the
revenue authorities, that shall be binding on the
authorities while considering any application filed
under the Act 9 of 2020 affecting the property in issue.
But for this contingency, as things stand now, there is no
restraint on processing the applications for mutation or
issuance of pattadar pass book, merely because a suit is
pending before civil Court or a case pending before this
Court concerning the property in issue.
9. From the aforesaid ratio laid down by this Court, it is clear that mere
pendency of civil dispute does not, by itself, bar the revenue authorities from
LNA, J
processing mutation applications or effecting entries in revenue records.
However, an exception has been carved out, viz., where there exists a
injunction or restraint order passed by a competent civil Court or by the
High Court, such orders are binding on the revenue authorities and must be
strictly adhered to while dealing with the applications under the Telangana
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020.
10. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, it is an
admitted fact that during subsistence of injunction order passed by the civil
Court in OS.No.127 of 2011, restraining alienation of the subject property,
respondent No.5 executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 and
further, respondent No.1 has mutated the revenue records on application of
respondent No.6. On appeal, without appreciating the fact that the mutation
was carried out during the subsistence of injunction order restraining
alienation in respect of the subject property, respondent No.2 erred in merely
disposing of the appeal, thereby, confirming the orders of mutation passed
by respondent No.1.
11. In the light of the principle laid down in R.Ram Reddy's case (cited
supra), the injunction order passed by the trial Court is binding on the
revenue authorities while entertaining any application under the Telangana
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020. However, in the instant
LNA, J
case, respondent No.1 has acted contrary to the injunction order passed by
the trial Court and furthermore, respondent No.2-appellat authority has erred
in not interfering with the said illegal order passed by respondent No.1.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings dated
08.07.2017 of respondent No.1 effecting mutation in favour of respondent
No.6 in respect of Acs.3.00 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.313/A and 313/E and
the consequential orders dated 30.07.2018 passed by respondent No.2 in
Appeal, vide Case No.D/516/2018 are hereby set aside.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:15.04.2026
dr
