Allowed

M.Srinivas Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jun 2019WP/8431/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Tahsildar's rejection of his mutation request due to lack of hearing opportunity. The High Court held that the rejection violated the mandatory procedure under Section 5(1) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The memo was set aside and the matter remanded for afresh consideration within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Memo dated 06.7.2007 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for consideration afresh within eight weeks.

M.Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.8431 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1 The petitioner assails the Memo dated 06.7.2007 of the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, whereby he rejected the request of the petitioner to effect mutation in his favour on the strength of his on-line application in Form VI (A). This mutation was sought in relation to the land admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.103/49/A of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶5

2 Perusal of the impugned Memo demonstrates that the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, did not even afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting his request for mutation. Reference in this regard may be made to Section 5(1) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1971’). This Section reads to the effect that upon receipt of an intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right under Section 4, the Tahsildar shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended. The proviso to Section 5(1) however states that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation should be passed unless the person making such an intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf.

¶6

3 Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would assert that the procedure prescribed under the aforestated proviso was not followed by the Tahsildar. The Memo dated 06.7.2007 supports his stand. Despite the fact that the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶7

Revenue took notice in this matter as long back as on 22.4.2019, no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶8

4 In that view of the matter, as the impugned Memo dated 06.7.2019 was issued in violation of the procedure prescribed under the proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 1971, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the said Memo. The matter is remanded to the file of the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for consideration afresh in terms of the prescribed procedure. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be it from whatever source.

¶9

5 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

¶10

stand closed.
-----------------------
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
Dt: 18.06.2019
Kvsn

M.Srinivas Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivas 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amanaganti Raghava Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Malapaneni Kotaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Banswada Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Sravan Kumar, Vs State of Telangana

Ramagiri Hanmanthu Vs The State of Telangana

B.Kalavathi Vs The State of Telangana