1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

               “… to issue a Writ order or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not deleting the name of the respondent No.5 in the revenue record in respect of land to an extent of Ac.2.01 guntas in Survey No.41/ee, situated at Sondepur Village, Parigi Mandal, Vikarabad District, which was allotted to the petitioner through Proceedings L.Dis.No.A5/3465/74 by entering the name of the respondent No.5 is arbitrary, illegal and malafide and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.2.01 guntas in Survey No.41/ee, situated at Sondepur Village, Parigi Mandal, Vikarabad District ….”

2. Heard Sri Timma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. T. Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent No.5.

3. The petitioner states that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and that he was assigned land to an extent of Ac.2.01 guntas in Sy.No.41/ee of Sondepur Village, Parigi Mandal, Vikarabad District (for short, ‘the subject property’), by proceedings L.Dis.No.A5/3465/74. According to him, he has been cultivating the subject property ever since the assignment, and his name was recorded in the revenue records.

4. The petitioner further states that, after his marriage, he shifted to the house of his in-laws at Bompally Thanda. In the meantime, after the introduction of the Dharani Portal and the enactment of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short, ‘Act No.9 of 2020’), respondent No.5, who is the son of the petitioner’s brother, got his name entered in the revenue records in respect of the subject property by influencing the revenue authorities. On coming to know of the entries, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.01.2022 to the District Collector, respondent No.2, seeking rectification of the entries. He says that he approached the respondent authorities on several occasions thereafter, but in vain, and therefore he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assignment patta issued in favour of the petitioner shows that he was assigned Ac.2.01 guntas in Sy.No.41/ee, and that his name was thereafter mutated in the revenue records. He submits that, during the Land Records Updation Programme (LRUP) undertaken by the Government, respondent No.5 got his name mutated in respect of the subject property on the ground that the petitioner had expired and that respondent No.5 had succeeded to the property. It is contended that the mutation was obtained fraudulently, and that the official respondents, being under the influence of respondent No.5, entered his name in the Dharani Portal without issuing any notice, without verifying the revenue records and without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prays that the respondent authorities be directed to delete the entries made in the revenue records, including the Dharani Portal and, presently, the Bhu Bharati Portal, in favour of respondent No.5, which are alleged to have been made spuriously, and to mutate or restore the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject property.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the entries in the Dharani Portal themselves form the basis of claim of respondent No.5 to the subject property. He further submits that, apart from the petitioner, the father of respondent No.5 was also assigned an equal extent of land in the very same survey number, and therefore the allegation that respondent No.5 got his name entered fraudulently, by influencing the revenue officials, is specifically denied. He also contends that the petitioner has directly challenged the entries in the revenue records without challenging the mutation proceedings pursuant to which those entries were made, and that the writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents, contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy available under law. She further submits that, since the representation of the petitioner dated 11.01.2022 is still pending, the concerned authorities may be directed to consider it. She also prays that the petitioner may be directed to submit an appropriate application seeking rectification of the entries under Section 4(1) of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short, ‘the Act of 2025’), through the Bhu Bharati Portal, and that, upon such application being made, the concerned authorities shall consider it in accordance with law.

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of mandamus as prayed for in this writ petition, or whether he should be directed to seek rectification of the entries before the competent authority under the Act of 2025.

10. A perusal of the assignment patta issued in favour of the petitioner shows that he was assigned Ac.2.01 guntas in Sy.No.41/ee and that his name was thereafter mutated in the revenue records, which are not seriously disputed. The dispute begins with the later entry in favour of respondent No.5. The petitioner says that entry was made during the LRUP on the wrong premise that he had died, and that it was made behind his back and by fraud. Respondent No.5 says that his entry is supported by the record and that his father was also assigned an equal extent of land in the same survey number. The official respondents have not placed any material before this Court to show on what basis, and after what enquiry, the name of respondent No.5 was entered.

11. The relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted without first deciding several questions of fact, which include whether the land assigned to the petitioner and the land assigned to the father of respondent No.5 are the same or different parcels within Sy.No.41/ee, what the record showed before and after the LRUP, whether any notice was issued to the petitioner before his name was replaced, and on what ground respondent No.5 claims to have succeeded to the property. The allegations of fraud and of undue influence over the revenue officials are denied and cannot be tested on affidavits alone. Verification of the assignment records, the old and present entries and the position on the ground is the work of the revenue authorities, who are the statutory factfinding forum. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily decide such disputed questions of fact.

12. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from entertaining a writ petition, and that the rule is one of discretion and self-restraint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognised that a writ petition may be entertained despite an alternative remedy where a fundamental right is enforced, where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, where the order or proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction, or where the vires of a legislation is challenged, as held in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai ((1998) 8 SCC 1). The petitioner alleges a breach of natural justice, since he says that no notice was issued to him. But the very purpose of that grievance is to have the entry examined afresh after hearing him. The authority under the Act of 2025 has the power to do exactly that, after hearing all the persons concerned. That remedy is efficacious and is better suited to the nature of the dispute. The petitioner has therefore not made out a case for this Court to bypass it.

13. It must also be kept in mind that an entry in the revenue records, or a mutation, does not by itself create or extinguish the title. It only carries a presumption for fiscal and administrative purposes and is open to correction on proper proof. A direction to delete the name of respondent No.5 and to restore the name of the petitioner would, in substance, decide rival claims over the subject property without any adjudication of the facts. Such a course is not proper, particularly when the claim of respondent No.5 has not been examined by any authority in the presence of the petitioner. Equally, this Court cannot approve the entry in favour of respondent No.5 merely because it stands in the present record, since the petitioner says that it was made without notice to him. The fair course is to leave both sides to establish their claims before the competent authority.

14. The objection of respondent No.5 that the petitioner has not challenged the mutation proceedings separately has little force in the present facts. The petitioner has prayed for deletion of the entry because it was made without notice and by fraud, and the remedy for rectification of the entry and the remedy against the mutation proceedings lie before the same statutory authority under the Act of 2025. The objection can be answered by directing that the application be considered on all grounds available to the petitioner, including the ground that the earlier mutation proceedings are vitiated. The contention that the present entry is sustainable because the Dharani Portal shows it cannot be accepted at this stage either, for the correctness of the entry on the Portal is the very matter in dispute.

15. As regards the representation of the petitioner dated 11.01.2022, it is not in dispute that it is still pending consideration. It is unfortunate that a representation by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, complaining that his assigned land was mutated in the name of another, has remained undecided for more than four years. The concerned authorities were bound to consider it and communicate their decision to the petitioner in accordance with law. However, since the Act of 2025 now provides a specific statutory mechanism for rectification of entries, with a right of hearing to all the persons concerned, it is appropriate that the petitioner invokes that mechanism, so that the dispute is decided by an order which can be tested in the remedies available under that Act, rather than on an informal representation. The earlier representation and the time spent on it and on this writ petition must, however, not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

16. This Court has not gone into the merits of the claims of the petitioner or of respondent No.5 over the subject property, and nothing stated in this order shall be taken as an expression of opinion on them. All contentions of both sides, on facts and on law, including the contention regarding the validity of the earlier mutation, are left open to be decided by the competent authority.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

               (i) The petitioner shall submit an appropriate application seeking rectification of the entries in respect of the subject property under Section 4(1) of the Act of 2025, online, through the Bhu Bharati Portal, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               (ii) On such application being made, the competent authority shall consider it and pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to all the persons concerned, including respondent No.5, within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. The authority shall verify the assignment records and the revenue records, including the entries made before and after the LRUP and the Dharani Portal, and shall pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions of the parties.

               (iii) The competent authority shall not reject the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay or on the ground that a representation was made earlier or that the matter was pending before this Court.

               (iv) Till the competent authority decides the application, neither the petitioner nor respondent No.5 shall alienate or create any third-party interest in the subject property.

               (v) The respondents shall communicate the order passed by the competent authority to the petitioner and to respondent No.5. It is open to any person aggrieved by that order to avail the remedies available to him under the Act of 2025 or under law.

18. Nothing in this order shall affect the right of either side to establish title before a competent civil court, if any.

19. There shall be no order as to costs.

20. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.