Telangana High Court
Mutyala Ramulamma vs The State Of Telangana on 14 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No.16663 OF 2026
14th MAY, 2026.
Between:
Mutyala Ramulamma.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by
its Principal Secretary (Revenue),
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat Bhavan,
Hyderabad and three others.
... Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
“…to pass an orders or issue any directions or issue any appropriate
writ more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS
declaring the 4th Respondent order bearing No B/687/2026
dt. 05.05.2026 in deleting number bearing SD2600002975 from the Bhu
Bharathi of the Petitioner’s patta pass bookin Survey no 657/A/3, an
extent Ac.300 Gts., trying to dispossess from the patta land situated at
Devarakonda village and mandal. Nalgonda District which is arbitrary
illegal and violation of the principles of natural justice under article 14,
21 and 300A of Constitution of India and Consequently set aside the
same and to pass…”
2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, and perused
the material available on record.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land
admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.657/A/3 situated at
Devarakonda Village and Mandal Nalgonda District, having
purchased the same from one Smt.P.Ramulamma, who derived
title through the decree dated 05.08.1978 passed in O.S.No.242 of
1978 from one Sri B.Kashaiah. Learned counsel further submits
that the Tahsildar issued Pattadar Pass bookbearing
No.T28080082169 with Khata No.60406 to the petitioner after
verification of the relevant records. Learned counsel also drew the
attention of this Court to the order dated 24.03.2026 passed in
W.P.No.8680 of 2026, wherein this Court directed that the
maintenance of Status Quo for six (06) weeks and permitted
respondent No.4 to take steps for cancellation of the passbook,
while directing the petitioner not to change the nature of the land
in the interregnum. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 issued
notice dated 06.04.2026 seeking explanation from the petitioner,
to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 13.04.2026.
4. It is further contended that respondent No.4 issued Form-I
notice dated 13.04.2026 granting fifteen (15) days’ time to the
petitioner to submit an explanation to the show cause notice
dated 06.04.2026 issued for cancellation of the Pattadar Pass
3
book, and the petitioner accordingly submitted a reply on
02.05.2026. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 issued
another notice by way of Form No.1 vide proceedings
No.B/687/2026 dated 05.05.2026, by deleting the petitioner’s
entry from the Bhu Bharathi portal and ordered dispossession.
Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was not
served with the said order and that the same was merely pasted
on the door of the petitioner instead of being properly served on
him on 08.05.2026. It is also contended that respondent No.4
deleted the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, subject
to approval by the District Collector.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
furnished written instructions and submitted that, as per 1955-58
Chessala pahani (Khasra pahani of 1954-55), the entire extent in
Sy.No.657 admeasuring Ac.125.07 guntas is classified as ‘Sarkari
Poramboku’. The land was assigned to Smt. Shankara
Ramulamma alias Pogaaku Ramulamma under the G.O.No.1406
Revenue Department, dated 31.07.1958, under the Laoni Patta
Rules and is governed by the provisions of the Telangana Assigned
Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. He further contended
that the provisions of the Telangana Assigned lands (POT) Act,
1977 prohibit alienation or transfer of assigned land and
4
therefore, the transfer made in favour of the petitioner in the year
2018 is void ab initio. He further contended that the decree passed
in O.S.No.242 of 1978 does not confer any right over the assigned
land, as the suit was between private parties and the Government
was not made a party thereto. It is also submitted that the order
dated 05.05.2026 is a reasoned order based on historical records
pertaining to the year 1955-58 and 2013-14, which do not reflect
the name of the petitioner or any of her predecessors. It is further
contended that the order dated 05.05.2026 as well as Section
4(1)b of the Act provides for an appeal to the Revenue Divisional
Officer within three (3) months and, therefore, an adequate and
efficacious of alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioner.
Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, this Court
is of the view that the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 does not
adequately discuss the documentary evidence submitted by the
petitioner in her reply, which constitutes a procedural irregularity.
However, inasmuch as a statutory remedy of appeal under Section
4(1)b of the Act is available to the petitioner, the petitioner shall
invoke the said appellate remedy. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
upon such appeal being filed by the petitioner, shall dispose of the
appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal
5
hearing to the petitioner, taking into account all the documents
placed on record, and shall pass a reasoned/speaking order
within sixty (60) days from the date filing of the appeal. Until the
appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer is filed and disposed
of in accordance with law, status quo prevailing as on today with
regard to possession of the land in Sy.No.657/A/3 admeasuring
Ac.3.00 shall be maintained. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall also
not alienate or change the nature of the land. The petitioner shall
file the appeal within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. In the event the petitioner fails to file such
appeal within the stipulated time, the interim order shall stand
vacated and the respondents shall be at liberty to take further
action in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Date: 14.05.2026.
Pav
