Allowed

Kondapalkala Hanmantha Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Sept 2021WP/21464/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the District Collector's failure to number a revision petition. Directing the 2nd respondent to transfer the pending matter to the Special Tribunal under the 2020 Act within two weeks, ensuring interested parties are notified subsequently.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to transfer the Revision petition preferred by the petitioners, dated 13.07.2020, to the Special Tribunal, within a period of two weeks fr

Kondapalkala Hanmantha Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21464 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kondapalkala Hanmantha Rao, S/o. K. Mukunda Rao, Aged about 57^years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶9

Kondapalkala Ashok Rao, S/o. K. Mukunda Rao, Aged about 54^years, Occ. Agriculture, Both resident of Lingapur Village of, Pegadapally Mandal, Jagtial District

¶10

...PET'r.NERS

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, at Jagtial District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, at Jagtial District.

¶15

The Tasildar, Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

¶16

Kondapalkala Syamala, W/o. Lingarao, aged about 66^{years, Occ.Agriculture,} Fl/o. Lingapur Village, Pegadapalli Mandal of, Jagtial^District.

¶17

,..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue a writ of mandamus or any other^'appropriate writ order^{or directionto declare} the illegal action of 2nd Respondent in not considering^{and adjudicating,not} numbering the Revision^petition filed d1.13.07.2020 by the^{petitioners under section 9} of A P ROR in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act^'1971 and^{in not passingany orders} in unnumbered Revision No. 12020 in Appeal No.B/633^{of 2019as the sameis} illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violating of Articles 14,^'16 and^{21 of constitution of} lndia and in violation of^principles of natural^justice and^{consequently direct the 2nd} respondent to adjudicate Revision^petition filed by the^{petitionersby numbering the} Revision petition and by seeing Revenue records and set aside the^{allegedmutation} proceeding ref . No. 8/846/2018, dt.20.07.2018 issued infdvour of Sth respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleasedto suspend the} operation of the alleged mutation^proceeding ref.No.8/846/2018, dt.20.0702018 issued infavour of Sth respondent^pending disposal of the writ^petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. CHANDRAKANTH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:^ORDER

¶23

j I

¶24

I I

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 21464 of2021

¶27

ORDBR:

¶28

Heard the leamed counsel for^{the petitioners and the learned} Govemment Pleader for^{Revenuefor respondentNos. I to 4. With} their consent, the Writ^{Petitionis disposed of at the admissionstage.} 2. The main grievance of the^{petitioners in this writ petition is that} respondent No.2 is not numbering^{the Revision Petitionfi1ed by them} in Appeal No.B/633 of 2019, on^{13.07.2020,and not passingany} orders in the said unnumbered^{Revision Petition.}

¶29

A perusal of the record discloses that challenging^{the order} dated 13.05.2020, passed by the^{respondent No.3-RevenueDivisional} Officer, Jagital, in Appeal No.B/633 of^{2019, the petitionershave} filed a Revision Petition before the respondent^No.2 -^{the District} Collector, Jagtial, under Section 9 of^{the AndhraPradesh Rightsin} Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1911, on^{13.07.2020.In the} meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and^PattadarPass Books Act, 1971, has been repealed by the Telangana^{Rightsin Land} and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020^(for short,^{'the Act No. 9 of} 2020'). As a result, all the appeals and the^{revisions pendingwith the} revenue authorities were transferred to the^{SpecialTribunals} constituted under the^provisions ofthe Act^No. 9^{of 2020.} 4. In view of the above, this Court is of the^prima facie opinion that ends of^justice would be met if the writ^{petition is} disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to transfer the^{RevisionPetition}

¶30

¶31

prefemed by the petitioners, to the Special Tribunal, if not already transfbned.

¶32

Accordingly, the wdt petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to transfer the Revision petition preferred the petitioners, dated, 13.07.2020, to the Special Tribunal, within a period of two weeks from today, if not already transferred. In case, the Revision^petition is arready transferred and pending before the Speciar Tribunal or on being transferred by the respondent No.2, the same shall be disposed of by the Special Tribunal in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is needress to observe that the Special Tribunal, before passing any orders in the Revision Petition, shall put all the interested parties on notice. A copy of the orders that may be passed by the Special rribunal shall be communicated to the petitioners.

¶33

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT BIEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I (u', SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The District Collector, at Jagtial District.

¶38

One CC to Sri P. Chandrakanth, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy CHR

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1^310912021

ORDER

W.P.No.21464^{of 2021}

¶44

1 tlc T
(
e
5o]J 2 7 sEP2021 ()
.>
{:
{
I r.a
Drcr,,.": C|

¶45

DTSPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

Kondapalkala Hanmantha Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondapalkala Hanmantha Rao 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

Durgam Rayalingu Vs The State of Telangana

Ponugoti Raja Gopal Vs Rohith Lal Renva and 29 others

M.Mallesh Vs State of Telangana and 3 Others

Chinthalapally Veera Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kanudukuri Ahalya Vs The State of Telangana

Lalith Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana