Disposed

Pinjarla Muthyalu Yadav v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC5 Jul 2021WP/5792/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the revenue authorities' failure to mutate the petitioner's name for agricultural land. The court held the application was procedurally invalid as it was not filed via the 'DHARANI' portal under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020. The petition was disposed of by granting liberty to file a compliant application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file an application through the 'DHARANI' web portal; Tahsildar directed to consider it and pass orders on acceptance or rejection within four weeks.

Pinjarla Muthyalu Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and 2… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5792 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Plnjarla..VqttyVqty.-Vqlav, S/o. late P.Shivaiah Yadav, Aged. 60 years, Occ . Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-5-39/3, Kummaribasthi, Macha Bollaram, Hlderabait - SOb 01O

¶10

...PETITIONER AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its principal Secretary to Govt. Revenug

¶12

Department, Secretariat, Hyderebad - S0O O2Z.

¶13

The District collector, Medchal lMalkajgiri District, Near oRR, Keesara, MedchalMalkajgiri, Secunderabad, Telangana-lSO1 301.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, Am-bedkar Naqar Main Road. Awaooa Naoar

¶15

Colony, Ambedkar Nagar, Bollarum, Secundlerabad, fetania65- bbO O1d-

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petitlon under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a wrrt or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\ulandamus declaring the action of respondents in not considering petitioner,s representation dated 23.02.2021 to m utate/incorporate his name in place of his late father sri Pinjarla shivaiah yadav, as the owner of agricultural land admeasuring ',l200 sq.yards in survey No.135/2 situated at Macha Boilaram, Medchar Markajgiri District (earlier Ranga Reddy District) as arbitrary, iilegar and against the Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-4 of Constitution of lndia

¶18

lANO: 1OF2 021

¶19

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.02.2021 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms R.MADHAVI LATHA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

PNR,.J WP No.5792 oI202l

¶25

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO. 5792 0F 2021

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

¶30

".. . to issue a writ or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not considering petitioner's representation dated 23.02.2021 to mutate/ incorporate his name in place of his late father Sri Pinjarla Shivaiah Yadav, as the owner of agricultural land admeasuring 1200 square yards in Survey No.135/2 situated at Macha Bollaram, Medchal Malkajgiri District (earlier Ranga Reddy District) as arbitrary, illegal and against the Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

¶31

Heard Ms. R.Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3.

¶32

Petitioner claims that he is the owner of 1200 square yards ol land in Sy.No.i35 l2 of Macha Bollaram, Medchal Malkajgiri district. This part of the land is remained with the petitioner after disposing of the. larger extent of the family property in the same survey number. Though petitioner and his father also entered into an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney on 18.01.2010, the sale could not be finalized as the vendees did not comply with the payment of balance sale consideration and, therefore, the property continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Petitioner applied for issuance of pattadar passbook on severai occasions, but so far it is not issued. Petitioner also wanted the mutation of his name in the revenue records consequent to death of his father. Date of death of his

¶33

WP No.5792 oJ202l

¶34

¶35

father is 29.O4.2O2O. Alleging^{inactionon the representations} submitted by the^{pe titioner, this writ petitionis filed.}

¶36

in other words, petitioner claimed to have succeeded^{to the} land from his father. If that being so, Section 6 of the^Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2020^{(Act 9 of 2020)is} applicable. Even before the new Act^{was promulgated,underAct} 26 of 197 I also the Government was not accepting^{the appiications} for mutation in physicai form. The Government has launched online web portal called 'DHARANI' and all the transactions concerning agricultural iand have to be made through 'DHARANI' web portal. Admittedly, petitioner has not made application through 'DHARANI' web portal taking recourse to the^{provision in} Section 6 of the Act 9 of 2o20. Therefore, as of now, it cannot be said that respondents are negligent in considering the application of the petitioner for mutation.

¶37

Petitioner is granted liberty to file an application through 'DHARANI' web^portal by taking^recourse and^{in complianceof} Section 6 of the Act 9 of 2O2O, by uploading all the^{documents in} support of his claim. If such application is Iiled, the respondentTahsildar shdll consider the same and if the Tahsildar is accepting the request of petitioner to grant mutation shall grant mutation in favour of petitioner. He shall also take steps to issue pattadar passbook and title deed. On the contrary, if the Tahsildar is not accepting the request of the petitioner for mutation, he shall pass orders by assigning reasons in support of his decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Writ

¶38

PNR,J WP No.5792^o12021

¶39

¶40

¶41

Petition is accordingly^{disposed of' Pending miscellaneouspetitions}

shall stand^closed.

SD/-M.MANJULA

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION^OFFICER

To 1. The Principal Secretary^{to Govt Revenue Department' Secretariat' State of}

¶50

tetanoand HYderabad^{- 500022'}

¶51

il5'DEi;[id;i,i.6i,^{rra;odriJ-MalkajsiriDislrict'Near oRR' Keesara' Medchal-} il;rkrfiili. bArnderdbad,^{Telangana -501 301 .} . -

¶52

.7 Tii,lTl'nllrjr"i^{nii,i:r Mr"iigi'lrGJluiNusarMain Road. Avvappa Nasar} colonv. Ambedkar^{Nagat, i;llailm,secuno'9gp4''Telangana-500 010}

¶53

4.5. i"i" One CC d6.'i to Ms.^{i'e p R.Madhavi Latha, Advocate tJi neuenul] riftrr court toittre luru-ulstdteof relanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶54

1. Two CD CoPies

¶55

One Spare^CoPY Kj. NS^,$-

¶56

HIGH COURT

¶57

DATED:0510712021

¶58

sTAIe'
r\9
n
lY
12 lut 2$21
o,

uCii ir,f.1i

¶59

ORDER

¶60

WP.No.5792 of 2021

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶62

qr:$ )-\

Pinjarla Muthyalu Yadav v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinjarla Muthyalu Yadav v. The State of Telangana and 2 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

Sri B.Shyam Sunder Reddy Vs Sri B.Janardhan Reddy, I.A.S

Bhanoth Mahendar Vs a. Gopal Rao

Velpula Krishna Vs v. Chandramouli

Paka Swarooa Rani and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Thipparthi Rajanna , Avusali Rajanna Vs The State of Telangana

Mubeen Sultana Vs The State of Telangana