Disposed

Sri a. Narender Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC1 Jun 2020WP/7347/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought deletion of his land (Sy. No. 24912) from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The High Court, noting a joint inspection report indicating the land is not forest land, directed the District Collector to dispose of the pending representation within eight weeks, considering the panel report.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent (District Collector) to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2020 within eight weeks, considering the joint inspection report of 21.04.2016, and forward n

Sri a. Narender Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TVONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7347 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri A. Narender Reddy, Occ. Business,R/o H.No1-35, Lemur Village, Kandukur IVandal.Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶11

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶12

The Revenue Drvisional Officer, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

The Thaisildhar, lbhrahimpatman Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶14

The Forest Range Officer, South zone, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶15

The Sub-Registrar Office, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶16

..,RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of tt/andamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in not d eleting/de-notifying the petitioners land i.e Sy. No. 24912 lo an extent of Ac. 10-00 Gts of kongarakalan Village of lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the prohibited list which has been notified under Section 22-A of the lndian Registration Act and not considering the representation made by the petitioners to the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the reminder to the representation daled 1110312020 and direct the 2nd respondent to d elete/d e-notify the petitioners land from the prohibitory list pursuance to the joint inspection conducted by the respondents on 2210412016.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Ser:tion^'1 51 CPC^praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support cf the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consid':r the representation made by the^petitioners.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitior er:SRl. T SUJAN KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respordents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the foll,rwing: ORDER:

¶22

Heard the learne I counsel for the petitioner and the ler,rrned Government Pleader for Revenue lc r respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed ol at the stagr of admission.

¶23

The main grieve nce of the petitioner in this^q,rit pe tition is that the respondents are not rLeleting the land of the petitioner in survey Nct.249 12 admeasuring Acs. l0- l0 guntas situated at Kongarakalan Village of Ibrahimpatnam MandaL, Ranga reddy District, lrom the 'Prcrhibitory List' under Section 22-A of the Re5 istration Act, i908, (in short 'the Act').

¶24

It is the case ol' the petitioner that he had also submitted a representation on 11.0 J.2O2O to the 2"d respondent to dele te the above survey numbers ix,hich are pat:a lands belonging to the petitioner from the 'Prohibitory List' maintained by thr Sub-Registrar under Scction 22-A of the Act. But the said representation, dr ted 1 1.03.2020, is not considered :ill date by the 2n(t respondenL and no ord, rs are passed.

¶25

It is the furth,'r case of the petitioner that eirrlier he made a representation to the o l'ficial respondents to conduct a join t survey and same was conducted on 2 1 .( 4.'2076, which revealed that the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of Acs.10-OO guntas does not forn- part of the forest kancha land. However the Collector has not acted upon tlre said joint survey report till date. Due to the inaction of the Collector, the notification was issued under Section 22-A ol the Act and the petitioner is unable to register the documents in respect of the subject land. The representation, dated I 1.03.2020, submitted -o the Collector is not yet disposed of till date. Thus, he

¶26

seeks indulgence of the Court to direct the second^{respondentherein i.e. the} Collector to act on the representation of the^petitioner duly^{taking into} consideration the^joint inspection report and delete the survey No.24912^of Kongarakalan Village belonging to the petitioner from the 'Prohibitory List' maintained by the Sub-Registrar under Section 22-A ol the Act.

¶27

Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that due to present pandemic situation and the subsequent lockdorvn, the representation, dated I | .O3.2O2O, submitted by the petitioner could not be disposed of and seeks some time for passing necessary orders on the said representation.

¶28

In view of the above submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-The District Collector to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 1 1 .O3.2O2O duly taking into account the report of the joint inspection conducted by the respondents on 21.04.2016 and pass necessary orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, preferably u,ithin a period of eight^,*'eeks from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioner will be put on notice and afforded an opportunily of hearing before passing any order. If the 2"d respondent comes to a conclusion that the land in Sy .No.249 I 2 of Kongarakalan Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is not government land and there is no interest of the Government involved over the said land, he shall forward the copy of the order to the officials of the Registration department for taking necessary steps to delete the survey number belonging to the petitioner from the the 'Prohibitory List' maintained by Sub-Registrar under Section 22-A of the Act. A copy of the order likely to be passed by the Collector will be communicated to the petitioner.

¶29

The miscellanec us petitions pending, if any, shall :rtand closed. There

¶30

sha1l be no order as to costs.

¶31

¶32

Sd/- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE r. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶33

//TtrUE COPY//

¶34

¶35

RE STSTRAR (JUDTCTAL il) ,V cl cg-, SECTION OFFICER ro\

¶36

To,

¶37

The Principal Secr etary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Building, Hyderab;rd, Telangana State.

¶38

The District Collec:or, Ranga Reddy, Lakidikapool, Hyderairad, Telangana State 3. The Revenue Divi^,rional Officer, Saroornagar Division, Hyd'-.rabad, Telangana State.

¶39

The Thaisildhar, lt hrahimpatman lVandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶40

The Forest Range Officer, South zone, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶41

The Sub-Registrar Office, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Telangana State.

¶42

One CC to Sri. T. Sujan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

Two CCs to GP fo Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶44

Two CD Copies.

PIV

HIGH COURT

AAR,J

DATED:01/06/2020

ORDER

WP.No.7347 of 2020

1 tlg S let €
(;
/)c (
l.) ,t 2 JUN 2C20 C i
\ ,I,
,+
itt
D
'lr.*

¶52

Disposing of the\A/P Without costs.

Sri a. Narender Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a. Narender Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

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

S Madhusan and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Bellam Vijaykumar Reddy Vs Union of India and another

Sri. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

V. Venkata Appa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M.Swamy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Lakkaraju Narasimha Rao and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others