M/S. Mahmood Builders Private Limited vs. State Of Telangana

Facts

M/s. Mahamood Builders Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging the action of Respondent No. 2, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in not rectifying a mistake in the Dharani portal/e-pattadar passbook. The mistake involved the incorrect entry of a GST Number (36AACCM3601LZL) instead of the Company Identification Number (CIN) (U45200TG1990PTC011506) in column No. 6. This entry pertains to land measuring 4 acres 28 guntas in Survey Nos. 126/2/c9, 126/2/e, 126/2/g, 126/2/f, situated at Mudwin Village, Kadtal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Petitioner had submitted an application for rectification on 19.03.2023, which was received by Respondent No. 2 on 27.03.2023 and resubmitted on 16.05.2023.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, to consider the application dated 19.03.2023 submitted by the Petitioner. The Court ordered that orders be passed in accordance with law, after issuing notices to all interested/affected persons. This direction was given within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. The Court found that the Petitioner had indeed submitted an application for rectification and that the Revenue's objection regarding the submission method was addressed by the Petitioner's submission of supporting documents and the assertion that a specific module for such changes was not available. The Court did not delve into the merits of the alleged mistake itself but focused on ensuring the application for rectification is considered and processed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 2 in not rectifying the mistake of entering the GST Number instead of the Company Identification Number (CIN) in the Dharani portal/e-pattadar passbook is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the incorrect entry of the GST number instead of the CIN in the land records is an arbitrary and unconstitutional action. They sought a direction to rectify this mistake. The Petitioner also submitted that they had filed an application for rectification, but it was not being processed. They further contended that there was no specific 'Praja Darbar' module for uploading applications for changes in column No. 6 of the passbook and that applications were being accepted based on the MeeSeva extract and other relevant documents. Revenue's Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue raised an objection that the Petitioner was required to submit their application through the 'Praja Darbar' module. The Petitioner, in response, submitted documents and stated that no such module existed for their specific application and that they relied on the MeeSeva extract.