Remanded

Tunikoju Anandalu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Feb 2022WP/4251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana set aside a cryptic order rejecting a petition to delete land from the prohibitory properties list. The court directed the District Collector to conduct a detailed enquiry and pass a reasoned order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application was set aside; the District Collector directed to conduct a detailed enquiry and pass reasons for rejection within two weeks.

Tunikoju Anandalu Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FoR THE STIII,SI,TFLANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Speciat originat J;;i";;Ao;i. ^'

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY , TWo THoUSAND AND rwErrrri-rvir"o.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETI TtoNNO :4251 0F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Tunikoju Anandalu. W/o T Raju Aged about 45 years Occ. house wife Rl o .1 3 -62 I 28, l,4a I la pur. S r ry; "g; ; coio"n;, i"yl;;;;;

¶8

AND

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

State of Telanoana Rep by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyt erabad

¶11

The District Collector, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶12

3 The Tahasirdar cum sub Registrar, Thurkapa[y, yadadri Bhuavanagiri District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of lVlandamus to declare the action of the respondents particularly the 2nd in rejecting the application No. 2100035558 for deleting of the tand in survey No. 24lEE/1 extent 0.10 gts situated at Velpupally village, Thurkapally mandal, yadadri Bhuavanagiri district form the prohibitory properties lis without assigning any reasons with a cryptic order as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, '16 and 3004 of Constitution of lndia consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner vide No. 2100035558 by giving the opportunity.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

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 pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to re-consider the application vide No. 2100035558 for deletion of the land in survey No. 24lEE/1 extnet Ac 0.10^gts situated at Velpupally village, Thurkapally mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DADI RADHA KRISHNA

¶18

Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE H(^{N'BLE SRI JUSTICEB" VIJAYSEN IIEDDY} TPETITIO^{N No.4251of 2022}

¶22

oRI)ER:

¶23

Heard^{earnedcounsel for the petitioner and the leamed} Assistant^{Go vernment Pleader for Revenue appearing for the} respondents.

¶24

The pe itioner^{is aggrievedby the action of respondent No'2 in} rejecting^{the I pplicationNo 2100035558,for deletion oftheland to an} extent of 0.1)^{gts in Sy.No.24lEE/1situated at Velpupally village'} Thurkapally^{vlandal,Yadadri Bhuavanagiri District liom the list of} prohibitory p operties,^{withoutassigningany reasons'}

¶25

As seen from the^{record, it is evident that a cryptic orderis} passed by s mpiy noting^{'Grievance Rejected'.As no reasonsare} assigned in t re impugned^{proceedings,they are set aside. Respondent} No.2 is dirt cted to conduct^{a detailed enquiry and passorders} assigning rei sons on the application^{submittedby the petitionervide} application l o.2100035558 seeking^{deletionofthe land admeasuring} 0.10 gts in S r.No.24lEE/1 situated^{at Velpupally village, Thurkapally} Mandal, Yat adri Bhuavanagiri^{District, from the list oi prohibitory} propefties, v ithin a period of two weeks fiom the date oi'^{receipt of a} copy of this rrder.

¶26

Accor lingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No^{order as to} COStS.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, sha)rstand c.losed.

¶28

Sd/. T.KRISHNA^KUMAR ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^{District Collector' Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District}

¶34

OneCC^{to SRI DADIRADHA KRISHNA' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶35

Two^{ccs to the Gp for Revenue,Highcourtfor the state of relangana' [oUTl}

¶36

Two^{C D. Copies'}

¶37

One^SpareCoPY'

MRq,f

HIGH^COURT

DATED:08102121Q2

ORDER

WP.No.4251^{c f 2022}

¶43

..$L
1E f 'tB m?1
)3t)q
4 -;. .i
..:/
:r,- -" . ,,.. -

¶44

DISPOSING^{CF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^{C )STS}

¶45

.,-'/
'1>

Tunikoju Anandalu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tunikoju Anandalu v. 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

Sirigiri Sammaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Elagurthi Rajender Vs State of Telangana

Sunkari Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sardar Ali Vs the State Acb, Rep by Acb Cases

Nagendla Krishna Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Chindam Balaiah and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others