Disposed

Muthyala Sai Kiran Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2019WP/20581/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking mutation of land records in his name. Note that partial mutation was already granted. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue available legal remedies regarding the remaining extent and closed pending miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to work out remedies available under law if dissatisfied with the decision. Pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Muthyala Sai Kiran Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

W.P.No. 20581 of 2019

¶3

Date: 6.11.2019

¶4

Between :

¶5

Muthyala Sai Kiran Reddy

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

This court made the following :

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

W.P.No. 20581 of 2019

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record.

¶15

According to petitioner, his father was the pattadar and occupant of land admeasuring Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.143/B, Ac.1.04 guntas in Sy.No.144/G, Ac.2-31 guntas in Sy.No.145/F, Ac.0.09 guntas in Sy.No.145/7, Ac.4-15 guntas in Sy.No.147/A, Ac.0.26 guntas in Sy.No.148B/D, Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy.No.149/6 and Ac.4-14 guntas in Sy.No.150/B of Gollapalli village, Yellareddypet mandal, Rajanna Sircilla mandal and petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.4-02 guntas covered by Sy.Nos.143/8, 144/G and 145/F of Gollapalli village from his father. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though he applied for mutation three times, the 4^th respondent is not taking any steps for mutating his name in the revenue records. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶16

During the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader produced photo copy of the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 16.9.2019, granting mutation in the name of petitioner to an extent of Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.143/8 and an extent of Ac.1.04 guntas in Sy.No.144/G.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that part mutation is not valid and there is no justification for not granting mutation for the entire extent of land standing in the name of petitioner.

¶18

In pursuance of the application of the petitioner, mutation has been effected. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the said decision, he has to work out his remedies, as available to him under law. Granting such liberty, this writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶20

Date: 6.11.2019 DA

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

W.P.No. 20581 of 2019 6.11.2019

Muthyala Sai Kiran Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthyala Sai Kiran Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habeeb Ali Baghdadi, Vs State of Telangana

Smt. L. Rekha Rani Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

B. Srinivas Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 other

K. Pradeep Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Chintalapally Manjula W/o. C. Ramdev Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.

Goshikonda Swetha Vs State of Telangana, and 4 others