Allowed

Lakkaraju Narasimha Rao and Another v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC1 Jun 2020WP/7387/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging failure to delete petitioners' land from Prohibitory List under Section 22-A of Registration Act. Court directed District Collector to dispose of representation within eight weeks considering Joint Inspection report.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent (District Collector) to dispose of representation within eight weeks and delete land from Prohibitory List if not government land.

Lakkaraju Narasimha Rao and Another Vs The State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

IVONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7387 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Lakkaraju Narasimha Rao, S/o. Late Lakkara.lu Ratna Rao, Aged about 52^years. Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Kongarakalan, lbhrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrcit, Telangana State.

¶8

Lakkaraju Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Late Lakkaraju Ratna Rao, Aged about 49^years. Occ. Agriculture, F|/o. Kongarakalan, lbhrahimpatnarn lVlandal, Ranga Reddy Distrcit, Telangana State.

¶9

.,.PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of lrlandamus declaring the action of respondents in not deleting/de-notifying the petitioners land i.e Sy. No. 24912 1o an extent of Ac.4-3'1 Gts of kongarakalan Village of lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the notification 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 dated 0310312020 and direct the 2nd respondent to delete/de-notify the petitioners land from the prohibitory list pursuance to the joint inspection conducted by the respondents on 2210412016.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under Sectr rn 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support o' the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consid 3r the reminder to representation mad e on 03/03/2020 by the petitioners

¶21

Counsel for the Petitione rs:SRl. T SUJAN KUMAR REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Responc ents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the follc wing: ORDER:

¶24

Heard the lear red counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of z t the stage of admission

¶25

The main grieva ece of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents are not creleting the land of the petitioner in survey No.249 / 2 admeasuring Acs.4-i 1 guntas situated at Kongarakalan Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga reddy District, from the 'Prrhibitory List' under Section 22-A of th,e Re,listration Act, 1908, (in short 'the Act').

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that they havr: also submitted a representation on O3.l)3.2020 to the 2"d respondent to delete the above survey numbers which are patta lands belonging to the petitioners from the 'Prohibitory List' mairrtained by the Sub-Registrar under Sect.ion 22-A of the Act. But the said reF resentation, dated 03.O3.2O2O, is nc t considered till date by the 2nd respondenl and no orders are passed.

¶27

It is the furtl rer case of the petitioners that <:arlier they made a representation to the official respondents to conduct a^jcrint survey and same was conducted on 2 .04.2016, which revealed that the and belonging to the petitioners to an extrnt of Acs.04-31 guntas does not fc,rm part of the forest kancha land. Hower er, the Collector has not acted upor the said joint survey report till date. Due to the inaction of the Collector, the r otification was issued under Section 22-A of the Act and the petitioners are^,,rnable to register the

¶28

documents in respect of the subject land. The representation, dated O3.O3.202O, submitted to the Collector is not yet disposed of till date. Thus, they seek indulgence of the Court to direct the second respondent herein i.e. the Collector to act on the representation of the petitioners duly taking into consideration the^joint inspection report and delete the survey No.249 12 of Kongarakalan Village belonging to the petitioners from the 'Prohibitory List' maintained by the Sub-Registrar under Section 22-A of the Act.

¶29

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

¶30

In view of the above submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2trd respondent-The District Collector to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners on 03.03.2020 duly taking into account the report of the joint inspection conducted by the respondents on 21.O4.2016 and pass necessary orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioners will be put on notice and aflorded an opportunity of hearing before passing any order. If the 2"d respondent comes to a conclusion that the land in Sy .No.249 / 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 1and, 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 petitioners from the 'Prohibitory List'maintained by the 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.

¶31

The miscellaneorrs petitions pending, if any, shall s:and closed. There

¶32

shall be no order as to )osts.

¶33

Sd/. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶34

//TRJE COPY//

¶35

e v"*gy

¶36

REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL II) ct

t&t.

IiECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secrrrtary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Building, Hyderaba J, Telangana State.

¶41

The District Collecl rr, Ranga Reddy, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 3. The Revenue Divis onal Officer, Saroornagar Division, Hyde rabad, Telangana State.

¶42

The Thaisildhar, lb rrahimpatman Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dis;trict, Telangana State.

¶43

The Forrest Range Officer, South zone, Hyderabad, Telang,rna State.

¶44

The Sub-Registrar 3ffice, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶45

One CC to Sri. T S,ujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

B. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Te angana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶47

1. Two CD Copies.

Pt\4

HIGH COURT

AAR,J

DATED:01/06/2020

ORDER

WP.No.7387 ot 2020

a1$e srA,
t
,1 2 iiJN 2c20 o )
t
r)EsPa.;c
t

¶55

Disposing of the /VP Without costs.

Lakkaraju Narasimha Rao and Another v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkaraju Narasimha Rao and Another 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

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