Allowed

Kambalapalli Sulochana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Mar 2022WP/1837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition filed by legal heirs challenging the non-disposal of a revision petition regarding land resumption. The Court directed the Joint Collector to enquire and pass orders on the pending revision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Joint Collector to initiate enquiry and pass orders on Revision No. E415469 of 2009 within three months.

Kambalapalli Sulochana Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA:^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF X/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1837 OF 2022

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Kambalapalli Sulochana, W/o late Kambalapalli^{Laxman Rao,Aged 66 years} Occ. Housewife

¶9

Kambalapalli Suresh Kumar, S/o^{late KambalapalliLaxman Rao, Aged 45} years

¶10

Kambalapalli Naveen Kumar, W/o late Kambalapalli^{Laxman Rao, Aged38} years

¶11

Kambalapalli Balakrishna, W/o late Kambalapalli^{Laxman RaoAged 36 years} (Petitioners 1 to 4 all are R/o H.No.17-2-870/18, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad)

¶12

G Jayasree, W/o G.Gyaneshwar Rao^{Aged 40 years, Fl/o.20-1-37,} Chandrikapuram, Purana Pool, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad

¶13

Petitioners herein are all rep by their GPA^{holder MeruguGopal S/o.Late} Malkaiah, Aged about 44 Yrs, Occ. Business,^{Rl/o.Plot No. 26 and 27, Flal} Nos. 403 and 503, Saty Sai Heights, - Shivaganga Colony, L.B.^Nagar, Hyderabad

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

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

¶17

The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District,

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga^{Reddy District,}

¶19

The Tahsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Hayathnagar lvlandal, Ranga^Reddy District.

¶20

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one more^particularly one

¶22

in the nature of Wr of [V]andamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 rn not disposing of t re revision No. E4l5469 of 2009 filed by the father of the petitioner herein cl'rllenging the orders of the respondent No,3 dated 10/03/2008 vide file No.B/229'2008 as being illegal, arbitrary, and u nco n stitutiona I and consequently direc the respondent No.2 to forthwith conduct the enquiry and dispose the revisi rn No. E4l5469 of 2009 pending on the file of the 2nd Respondent.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition undt r Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High Court ma'/ be pleased to direct the Respondent Nc 2 to forthwith conduct the enquiry and dispose the revision No. E415469 of 2009 p :nding on the file of the 2nd Respondenl pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Pe:itioners: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY rep. SRI C.NARESH REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Re spondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made th: following: ORDER

¶28

I i

¶29

(

¶30

HONOURABLE SRI JUS'TICE B. VI.IAYSEN REDDY

¶31

WlLlT PETITI0N No.l837 OF 2022

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Aggrieved by the action ol lespondent No.2 - the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in not disposing of Revision Petition No.E4l5469 of 2009 filed by Mr. Kambalapalli Laxman Rao, who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 helein, challenging the orders of respondent No.3 - the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, this writ petition has been filed.

¶34

Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, leamed counsel, lepresenting Mr. C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material on record.

¶35

the petitioners clairn that revision petition was filed by Mr. Kambalapalli I.axman Rao ancl after his death, they have filed application seekir.rg to bring thern on record as his legal heirs before respondent No.2. The revision is fi1ed challenging the

¶36

t i

¶37

¶38

orders date( 10.03.2008 in File No.B1/22912008 passed by respondent I. o.3 - the Tahsildar cum Sub Registrar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rar -:a Reddy District, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner s under Section 4(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prevr ntion of Transfers) Act 1977 challenging resumption of the land admeasuring Acs.5-20 gunras in Survey No.44l1 situated at l lunganoor Village o1' Ha1,'athnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distri t, was dismissed.

¶39

On directions of this Courl to reporl whethel the revision is still pendir g on the file of respondent No.2, the learned Assistant Govemment lor Revenue reports that the levision is still pending on the file of :espondent No.2.

¶40

Thtrefore, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission itr elf directing respondent No.2 - the Joint Collector, Ranga Redd^, District to forthwith initiate enquiry in Revision No.E4l5469 lf 2009 and pass orders thereon in accordance with law within a teriod of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs

¶41

-l

¶42

¶43

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶44

pending in the writ etition stand closed.

¶45

Sd/- K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Gb SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The Joint^{Collector, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶48

One CC to^{SRI C.NARESH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶49

3.TwoCCstotheGPforRevenue,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana. lourl

¶50

Two C.D.^CoPies

¶51

One SPare^CoPY.

I,1RC

f. t

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910312022

ORDER

-"-=
,/'of" 1He S l.i )^ 'Qe. _.<br>e
o
(-) I 1 H|AB (.l0i2
.{

¶59

WP.No.1837 of 2021

¶60

DISPOSING OF THI WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

ln
)l

Kambalapalli Sulochana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kambalapalli Sulochana 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

DobbalaSuguna Vs The State of Telangana

Dablikar Narsoji Vs The State of Telangana

Kuntolla Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana

R.Lalitha Yadav Vs State of Telangana

Radhika Rani Agarwal Vs State of Telangana

S.Laxman Vs State of Telangana