Telangana High Court
Mari Yadiredy vs The State Of Telangana, on 16 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.11090 of 2025
ORDER :
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' application dated 12.06.2023, in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.10677 of 2023 dated 20.04.2023. The petitioners seek an enquiry, including consideration of the report of the Tahsildar, to determine whether the land held by them is classified as ceiling surplus land. They further pray for consequential directions to the revenue authorities to delete the said land from the list of surplus lands and to incorporate the petitioners' names in respect of land admeasuring Ac.8.11 guntas in Sy.No.527, situated at Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by removing the same from the prohibited properties list and by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, particularly under the provisions of Act 9 of 2020.
2. Heard Sri K.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy.
Page 2 of 4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land admeasuring Ac.8.11 guntas in Survey No.527 of Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally belonged to Late Marri Pedda Balreddy, who purchased it under a Sada Bynama dated 15.10.1952 from Smt.Mahboob Begum. The sale transaction was subsequently validated under Section 50B of the Telangana Tenancy Act, 1950, by proceedings dated 1979. The land has been under continuous possession and cultivation by the petitioner's predecessor-in-title and thereafter, by the petitioners as legal heirs.
(a) It is submitted that despite validation of the transaction, the said land has been erroneously recorded as surplus land in revenue records since 1970, due to the failure of the original declarant to exclude it from ceiling declarations. The petitioners submitted multiple representations, including one dated 31.03.2023 and online applications Nos.2300060234, 2300060237, 2300060240 and 2300060241, seeking correction of revenue records and deletion of the land from the prohibited list.
(b) The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this Court, in W.P.No.10677 of 2023 dated 20.04.2023, directed the respondents to consider the said representation and applications within eight weeks. However, the respondents failed to conduct any proper Page 3 of 4 enquiry or ascertain whether the land falls under ceiling surplus.
Instead, the Tahsildar submitted a report to the Collector recommending rejection of the petitioners' request, without assigning reasons or complying with this Court's earlier directions.
(c) It is submitted that despite the petitioners' claim being supported by historical possession, validation under Section 50B and a recommendation by the Sub-Registrar dated 28.08.2021, endorsed by the District Collector for deletion from the prohibitory list, the revenue authorities have not issued pattadar passbooks or updated the revenue records. Aggrieved by the inaction and in violation of this Court's earlier order, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submits that the online web portal reflects the action taken by the official respondents in the petitioner's case. It is further contended that the portal does not provide a facility to upload or display detailed reasons for administrative decisions. Therefore, the mere absence of such reasons in the portal cannot be construed as arbitrary or perverse. Stating so, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
Page 4 of 4
5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2 ought to have passed a reasoned order by assigning specific grounds for rejection of the petitioners' applications. The absence of a speaking order, particularly in the context of compliance with earlier directions of this Court, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to communicate the reasons for rejection of the petitioners' applications as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. No order as to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated : 16-10-2025 abb