Telangana High Court
Fatima Begum And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 29 July, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.1033 of 2020
DATE OF ORDER:29.07.2026
BETWEEN:
Fatima Begum and three others
....... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana, reptd by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Hyderabad and three Others
....Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the orders
passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.C/2307/2019, dated 23.12.2019 directing
respondent No.4 to delete the names of the petitioners in respect of land
admeasuring Acs.9.37 guntas in Sy.No.18 of Rangapur Village and to take over
the possession of the land into custody of the Government by recording the land
as ‘Government Kharij Khata’ as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of
natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of Constitution
of India and the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.27640 of 2019 dated
13.12.2019 and consequently, to set aside the order dated 23.12.2019.
2
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
2. Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondents.
3. The brief facts as averred in the writ petition are that the petitioners are
the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.10.01 guntas situated at
Rangapur Village Basireddypalli Grampanchayath Pargi Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District in Sy.Nos.18/A2/1, 18/A/2/2, 18/A/3/1, 18/A/3/2, 18/A/1, 18/A/2,
18EE/1/1, 18/EE/2/1, 18/EE/3/1, 18/EE/3/2, 18/E/2, 18/E/1, 18/EE/1/2,
18/EE/2/2, 18/EE/1/2 and 18/A/1/1 (herein-after referred to as subject property),
having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed No.1879 of 2014 dated
18.09.2014.
3.1. It is further stated that while so, suo motu appeal was taken on file by the
office of Respondent No.3 under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land
and Pattadar Passbooks Act,1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act 1971’) pursuant to the
directions issued by the District Collector; that the petitioners, on receiving
notice of the suo-moto enquiry, had repeatedly requested for furnishing copies
of the documents forming basis of the suo motu enquiry, but respondent No.3
failed to furnish the relevant records, thereby depriving the petitioners of an
effective opportunity to submit their reply thereto; that the petitioners had
earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.27640 of 2019, wherein this
Court specifically directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to furnish the
relevant documents to the petitioners upon their request, consider the objections
3
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
of the petitioners and thereafter proceed in accordance with law; that, contrary
to the directions of this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, instead of
furnishing all the relevant documents, has furnished only a Memo dated
19.11.2019, Proceedings No.B/7193 of 2007 and B/7352 of 2007 dated
25.02.2008 of the Tahsildar, Pargi, while withholding the remaining documents
which were relied upon in the enquiry, and further, that without giving an
opportunity to file proper reply, respondent No.3 proceeded to pass the
impugned order on 23.12.2019. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners filed
contempt case vide CC(SR).No.1289 of 2019.
4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the suo motu proceedings were
initiated based on a representation submitted by one Venkataiah, District
General Secretary, Telangana Agriculture Workers Union, Vikarabad District
Committee, before respondent No.2, to which the petitioners were not made
parties; that the petitioners were never associated with any enquiry nor were put
on notice preceding the initiation of the suo motu appeal.
4.1. He further submitted that the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness
inasmuch as another purchaser, namely Sri Vijay Kumar, whose name was
mutated by the same revenue authorities, was not proceeded against, whereas
the names of the petitioners alone were directed to be deleted from the revenue
records, without any rational basis; that the petitioners had purchased the
property only after obtaining clarification from the Tahsildar regarding the
4
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
status of the land and had acted bona fide. The direction to classify the subject
land as Government Kharij Khata and to take over possession of the same is
therefore illegal and threatens the petitioners with imminent dispossession.
5. By contending as above, learned Counsel for petitioners finally submitted
that the impugned proceedings are arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of
natural justice and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.
No.27640 of 2019, and hence, are liable to be set aside.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the
judgments in WP No.15955 of 2019 (Syed Jaffar Ahmad v. District Collector)
and WP.No.12372 of 2019 (SPPS Systems Private Limited v. State of
Telangana).
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the
respondents, submitted that the impugned proceedings was passed strictly in
accordance with law and after following the procedure contemplated under the
Act, 1971. He submitted that the suo motu appeal was initiated by the Revenue
Divisional Officer pursuant to the Memo No.A1/3381/2019 dated 19.11.2019
issued by respondent No.2, directing an enquiry into the legality of the
mutations effected in respect of the subject land.
7.1. She further submitted that as per the basic revenue records, i.e., Sessala
Pahani (1955-58), the land in Sy.No.18 admeasuring Acs.14.39 guntas was
5
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
classified as “Sarkari Kharij Khata” and subsequently, portions of the land
were shown as “Kharij Khata Patta (Laoni Patta)” in the names of certain
individuals and then as patta lands, this change in classification of land from
“Kharij Khata Patta” to “Patta” in the revenue records had no legal basis; that
the petitioners’ predecessors had no valid title to convey; that the petitioners had
purchased assigned (Laoni) lands without obtaining the requisite permission or
No Objection Certificate from the competent authority; that lands assigned
under the Laoni Rules are only heritable, but not alienable, and therefore the
sale transactions relied upon by the petitioners are in violation of the Telangana
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and as such, the mutations
effected in favour of the petitioners were contrary to law.
7.2. She further submitted that the petitioners were issued notice in the suo
motu appeal and they had, in fact, challenged the notice before this Court in
W.P.No.27640 of 2019. Pursuant to the directions issued therein, the petitioners
appeared before respondent No.3 through their counsel on 21.12.2019. The
documents available on record were furnished to petitioners and they neither
sought any additional documents nor produced any material to establish the
legality of the change in classification of the land or the title of their
predecessors.
7.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that upon
consideration of the available revenue records and the material placed before
6
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
him, respondent No.3 found that the petitioners had failed to establish how the
land which was originally classified as ‘Government Kharij Khata’ was changed
to ‘Patta’ or to produce the relevant link documents tracing their title and as
such, he rightly passed the impugned order.
7.4. She further submitted that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of
a complaint received from the District General Secretary of the Telangana
Agricultural Workers Union alleging irregularities in the mutations made by
respondent No.4, and that respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to enquire
into the matter. The impugned order was thus passed after considering the
material available on record and therefore, the same cannot be said to be
arbitrary.
7.5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the
contention of the petitioners that they had purchased the property after obtaining
clarification from the Tahsildar is unsupported by any documentary evidence
and has therefore the same was rightly rejected by respondent No.3 in the
impugned order.
8. She finally, submitted that against the impugned order, the petitioners
have an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector, but,
instead of availing the same, the petitioners have directly invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court and on the said ground also, the Writ Petition is liable
to be dismissed.
7
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
10. The material placed before this Court discloses that the impugned
proceedings were initiated pursuant to a representation submitted by the District
General Secretary of the Telangana Agricultural Workers Union before
respondent No.2 alleging illegal mutations in respect of the subject land. The
impugned order proceeds on the premise that the subject land was originally
classified as “Sarkari Kharij Khata” in the Sethwar and Sessala Pahani (1955-
58); that it was subsequently shown as “Kharij Khata Patta (Laoni Patta)”; and
thereafter came to be reflected as “Patta land” in the revenue records without
any legal basis. Proceeding on such reasoning, respondent No.3 concluded that
the mutations effected in favour of the petitioners and their predecessors were
illegal and consequently, directed to record the subject land as ‘Government
Kharij Khata’.
11. In Syed Jaffar Ahmad‘s case (cited supra), this Court, while referring to
the Handbook of Land Records authored by Sri P.Kasthuri Reddy, explained
that “Kharij Khata” merely denotes portions of patta land are deleted from the
pattadar’s khata for reasons such as relinquishment of land or on account of
erosion of land adjoining a river or the land has become useless for cultivation
or non-payment of land revenue. More importantly, this Court held that once the
8
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
Government itself had subsequently recognised such Kharij Khata land as patta
land and permitted registrations and effected mutations in the revenue records, it
cannot, after a considerable lapse of time, seek to ignore the subsequent entries
and once again claim and treat the land as ‘Government land’ by merely
referring to its original classification as ‘Kharij Khata’.
12. The aforesaid principle was further reiterated by this Court in SPPS
Systems Private Limited‘s case (cited supra), wherein it was held that the
burden of explaining how the entry in the revenue records changed from Kharij
Khata to patta land cannot be placed upon the purchaser or landholder. The
Court observed that the Government and the revenue authorities, being the
custodians and authors of the revenue records, are required to explain the basis
for such change. Consequently, mere inability of a purchaser to explain the
historical alteration in the revenue entries cannot constitute a valid ground to
invalidate the existing entries or deprive such purchaser of his rights.
13. In the instant case, the principal reason assigned in the impugned
proceedings is that the petitioners failed to establish how the entries in the
revenue records, which originally show the subject land as Kharij Khata, was
altered as patta land. Such reasoning, in the considered opinion of this Court,
cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments.
Once the revenue authorities themselves have recognised the subject land as
patta land, effected mutations from time to time and permitted transactions on
9
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
the strength of such entries, the burden cannot thereafter be shifted upon the
petitioners to explain the historical basis for the alteration of the revenue
records. It is for the respondents, who are the custodians and authors of the
revenue records, to explain the basis for such change and further, establish that
the subsequent entries were illegal or fraudulent and are duty bound to disclose
the material on the basis of which they seek to disregard the existing revenue
records. Except relying upon the original entry in the Sethwar and Sessala
Pahani showing the subject land as Government Kharij Khata, the respondents
have not placed any material to demonstrate that the subsequent classification of
the land as ‘patta land’ was without authority of law or that the mutations
effected over the years were the result of fraud or misrepresentation. In the
absence of such material, by the impugned order respondent No.3 erred in
directing deletion of names of the petitioners from the revenue records and
restoration of the land as ‘Government Kharij Khata’ solely on the ground that
the petitioners failed to explain the change in classification.
14. The proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgments squarely applies to
the facts of the present case. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the
respondents, being custodians and authors of the revenue records, failed to
discharge the burden cast on them to establish as to how the nature of subject
lands was changed from ‘Kharij Khata’ to ‘patta land’, by placing any material
to substantiate the same. Conversely, respondent No.3 in the impugned order
10
LNA, J
WP.No.1033 of 2020
erred in holding that the petitioners have failed to establish such change of
classification of subject land, which is unsustainable.
15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the
foregoing reasons and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Syed
Jaffar Ahmad‘s case (cited supra) and SPPS Systems Private Limited‘s case
(cited supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned
proceedings of respondent No.3 is unsustainable in law and hence, are liable to
be set aside.
16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding
No.C/2307/2019 passed by respondent No.3, dated 23.12.2019 is hereby set
aside.
17. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:29.07.2026
Dr
