Raveesh Realty Infra Developers LLP v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-15. Raveesh Realty Infra Developers LLP v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
[ 31831 tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX Erl:FI=Nfi THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY oF 2026 Between: Raveesh Realty lnfra Developers LLP, at H. no. 1-98-9-12/A/A, Flat no. 205 Jubilee Cyber Grand Madhapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District rep. by its desQnated Partner Ponguleti Sai Charan Reddy S/o P. Mahendar Reddy, Aged 31 years . PETITIONER 't. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Office at Kongara kalan, R. R. District. 3. T. he Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Tahasildar, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 5. Sahajidi, D/o Sadak, Aged about 47 years, occ. agriculture r/o H. no. 2-39, Tekulapalle(v), Kondurg (M) Ranga Reddy District .
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the -circumstances stated in the afiidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent no. 4 in trying to proceed for affecting modification and mutation in favour of respondent no. 5 pursuant to his online application in Bhu Bharathi portal vide no. RC. 2600001921 dt. 23-2-2026 seeking to incorporate his name to an extent of Ac. 0-23 in Sy. no. 37V00/1/1 situated at Tekulapalle (v) Kondurg (M) Ranga Reddy District, by deleting name of the petilioner, despite reply dt. 17-3-2026 without conducting any physical enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent no. 4 to reject 1:he application of the unofficial respondent for affecting modification or mutation.
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may. be pleased to direct the respondent no.. 4 not to modifo or mutate the name of the unofficial respondent in place of petitioner in rcspect of land to an extent of Ac. 0-23 in Sy. no. 37V00/1/1 situated at Tekulapalle (v) Konduq (M) Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the, Respondent No. l to 4: SR! L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court madr: the following: ORDER "} a) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY No. DATE OF ORDER: 15. 04. 2026 Between: Raveesh Realty Infra Developers Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents ORDER: (ORAL) Heard Mr. M. V.
Hanumantha Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Mr. L. Ravinder, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents No. l to 4; and perused the materiar on record. 2. "Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue takes preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition and submitted thar application has been filed by respondent No. 5 before respondent No. 3 seeking implementation of decree dated t0. 12. 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy Disrrict in o. S. No. 62 of 200g. The claim of the petitioner is that it has purchased the land admeasuring Acs. 37-00 guntas in Survey Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 40, situated at Tekulapalle village, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District out of the total suit land admeasuring Acs. 53-32 guntas from the plaintiffs and defi:ndants.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied for : Er- j mutation in respect of the subject land which has been issued and subsequently, the pattadar pass book was also issued its favour. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader further submitted that the petitioner has submitted reply dated 17. 03. 2026 to the notice (Ex. P-l), and the same will be duly considered in accordance ''vith law- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute with regard to th,g purchase of the subject land by the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 applied for pattadar pass book in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 0-23 guntas in Survey l. lo. 37Voo/1/1, situated at Tekulapalle village, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Red<ly District which forms part of the land admeasuring Acs. 37-00 guntas in Survey Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 40 purchased by the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 (the wife of plaintiff No. 3 inthe suit) executed sale deed in favourof the petitioner along with other parties in the suit.
That after the death of her husband, resipondent No. 5 was brought on record as legal heir in the suit and does not have any interest whatsoever over the land admeasuring Ac. 0-23 guntas in Survey No. 37VOO/l/l purchased by the petitioner. 4. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mutation application submitted by respondent No. 5 cannot be entertained in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 0-20 guntas in Survey No. 32iA2 for which the petitioner was already granted mutation and pattadar pass book in its flavour. rf J 5. In the light of the above submissions, considering that the petitioner has already submitted reply to the notice, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on merits. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 3 to consider the reply dated 17. 03. 2026 to the notice (Ex. P-i;, und pass appropriare orders in the mutation application No. RC2600001921 dated 23. 02. 2026 submitted by respondent No.
5 in accordance with law, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 5, and all other concerned/interested persons. It is made clear respondent No. 3 shall not pass any orders until the petitioner is heard. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition, stand closed. ASSISTANT ISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad' State of Telangana. Office at Kongara kalan' R'R' 2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District District. 3. The Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Tahasildar, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 5. One CC to SRI M. V. HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocate [oPUC] 6. Two ccs to GP FOR REVENUE, High court for the state of Telangana' at Hyderabad IOUTI 7. Two Copies BSR BS r' a cc HIGH COURT DATEDi 1510412026 THE S Y iJi 2 0 APR 202[ ORDER * * WP. No.
1 1500 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION ;l WTHOUT COSTS e
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.