Disposed

N. Ravinder Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC16 Dec 2022WP/470/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the registration authorities' blanket prohibition of land in Survey No.270. The court directed the petitioner to file an online application under module TM-15, after which the authorities must consider it with personal opportunity and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file online application under TM-15 module within two weeks; respondents directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

N. Ravinder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s6 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^. AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO ./ PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 470 OF 2022

¶5

Betwcen:

¶6

N. Ravinder Reddy, S/o. late N. Venkat Reddy, Occ.. Business, R/o. Flat No 201, H. No. l7l-383/106, Nagaria Residency, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶7

...PETITIONER^,/.

¶8

ANI)

¶9

l. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶10

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, At Lakdi-ka-Pul, Hyderabad

¶11

The Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Fligh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.2 and 3 in not receiving the conveyance deed/sale deed(s) fpr registration presented by the Petitioner pertaining to the land admeasuring Acre 00-20 Guntas in survey No. 27OlA,l1 situated at Kongara Khurd-A Village, Maheshwarm Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on the ground that the subject property is recorded in their register under the court case, as nianifestly arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, abuse of process of law, abuse of power entrusted by law, abuse ofofficial capacity and position and violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 receive, process, register and release the conveyance/sale deed(s) to be presented by the Petitioner pertaining to the land admeasuring Acre 00-20 Guntas in survey No. 270/dill situated at Kongara Khurd-A Village, Maheshwarm Mandal, Ranga Reddy District;

¶14

IA NO:2 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section i5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the IIigh Court may be pleascd to Implead the proposed Respondents No.4 to 6 as Respondents No.4 to 6 in W.P. No. 470 of 2022, in the interest ofjustice

¶16

IA NO: I OF 2022

¶17

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 and 3 process the document presented for registration by the Petitioner in respect of his property i.e. land admeasuring Acre 00-20 Guntas in survey No. 270ldrll/l situated at Kongara Khurd-A Village, Maheshwarm Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to register the same

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR ",-

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION (TG)

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.47O OF 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is irled questioning the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not receiving conveyance deed sought to be submitted by the petitioner for registration in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.O.20 gts in Survey No.27Olrawl1 situated in Kongara Khurd-A Village, Maheshwarm Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner herein, having been aggrieved by the interference by the third parties in respect of land in Survey No.270/E to an extent of Ac.O.10 gts and certain other lands, frled O.S.No.13O of 2O2O on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and in the said suit, an interlocutory application seeking.injunction was dismissed resulting in filing C.M.A.No.57 of 2O2l and the said C.M.A. also came to be dismissed resulting in filing of C.R.P.No.1643 of 2O2l before this Court and in the said C.R.P., this Court stated to have passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner herein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the subject matter of the said suit in O.S.No.130 of 2022, C.M.A.No.57 of 2O2l and C.R.P.No. 1643 of

¶26

2 MSK,J W.P.NO.470 0F 2022

¶27

2O2l is only thc land sitr-rated in Survey No.27Oltr but not the land, which is the subject matter in the present Writ Petition. But, however, the respondents 2 and 3, without application of mind, included the entire land situated in Survey No.27O I raw I I in the list of prohibitory properties, thereby, prohibiting the petitioner from enjoying the same. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶28

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that there are multiple Court cases that are pending and in view of the same, the entire Survey No.270 is included in the list of prohibitory properties.

¶29

Prima facie, the said action of the respondents in including Suney No.270 in the list of prohibitory properties is not in accordance with law and the same is arbitrary and illegal. If at all any portion of Survey No.270 is stibject matter or any injunction order or restraint order passed by the Civil Court, respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to include the land that is actually covered by such restraint order but in the entire survey number. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also submitted that in case if the petitioner makes any application under Dharani Portal under module No.TM-15 for inclusion in list of prohibitory properties, the respondents would consider the

¶30

k' \

¶31

3 MSK,J W.P.NO.470 0F 2022

¶32

same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also expresses his willingness to make such application and pray this Court to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on such online application by duly considering the same.

¶33

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit an online application under TM-15 module on Dharani Portal within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of such online application, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the same by duly affording a personal opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the ciate of receipt of such online application.

¶34

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY/I

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, I . The Principal secretary,^{Revenue(Stamps andRegistration) Department,Secretariat,} Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶39

The District Collector,^{RangaReddyDistrict, At Lakdi-ka-Pul,Hyderabad}

¶40

The Tahsildar,^{MaheshwaramMandal, RangaReddy District}

¶41

One CC to SRI. DIDA^{VIJAYA KUMARAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶42

Two CCs to GP^FOR STAMPS^{AND REGISTRATION(TG),High Court for the} State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶43

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

MSK, J

DATED: 1611212022

OIIDER

1t\ E STA r6-
q 'i'
i 21 tAil zrtl
iI,
l:t ,

¶49

WP.No.470 of 2022

¶50

WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF \ ITHOUT COSTS

N. Ravinder Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Ravinder Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeradi Savitha Vs State of Telangana

Sri Mamilla Bheem Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Bakka Lakshmi Vs State of Telangana

Sri Veerannagari Gautham Reddyand 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Sri Veerannagari Ciatitham Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Pamaraju Thirumala Rao Vs The State of Telangana