Mantham Laxman v. State of Telangana

2

notice, has approached this Court without any legal basis; no decision has yet been taken by respondent No.4 pursuant to the impugned notice; and on apprehension that adverse orders would be passed, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner of the land admeasuring Acs.3-10 guntas i.e., Acs.2-12 guntas in Survey No.311/A and Ac.0-38 guntas in Survey No.311/AA2 situated at Gopanpalli Village, Nizamabad Rural Mandal, Nizamabad District, by virtue of the registered sale deed bearing document No.4737 of 2002 dated 12.06.2002. He was issued pattadar pass book bearing No.T11190130185. Out of Acs.3-10 guntas, the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in Survey No.311/AA2 to one C. Ravinder Reddy under the sale deed bearing document No.4600 of 2019 dated 29.03.2019. While so, the petitioner was surprised to receive the impugned notice dated 24.02.2026, wherein it is alleged that the extent of land entered in the name of the petitioner is Ac.2-30 guntas in Survey No.311 even after sale of Acs.0-20 guntas to Mr. C. Ravinder Reddy and, thus, Ac.0-20 guntas has to be deleted from the holding of the petitioner.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted explanation to the impugned notice on 27.02.2026 stating that he holds total extent of

3

Ac.3-10 guntas, out of which he sold Ac.0-20 guntas to Mr. C. Ravinder Reddy. The vendor of the petitioner, Mr. Jampani Peddanna, never sold any land, much less Acs.0-20 guntas, in favour of Mr. Rajalingaiah at any point of time.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain that Mr. Rajalingaiah did not have title to the property and the dispute, if any, between the parties is civil in nature and respondent No.4 does not have any jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice to the petitioner.

7. As seen from the record, on application filed by Mr. C. Ravinder Reddy, who is the purchaser of land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas from the petitioner under the sale deed dated 29.03.2019, for issuance of pattadar pass book, the impugned notice has been issued. On verification of the revenue records, it was found that there is discrepancy in the extent of land in Survey No.311 of Gopanpalli village, thus, the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation. In fact, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the impugned notice issued by respondent No.4. But, without waiting for the outcome of the proceedings before respondent No.4, the petitioner has approached this Court. There is no allegation that respondent No.4 is not having jurisdiction to entertain the application of Mr. C. Ravinder Reddy, who has purchased the land from the petitioner.

4

8. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.4 to consider the objection/reply dated 27.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner to the impugned notice 24.02.2026 and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested/concerned persons. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.

____________________

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

Date: 09.04.2026 v v