Allowed

Viswanatham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Feb 2022WP/5019/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the arbitrary rejection of an application to enter petitioner-farmers' names on village land in the Dharani Portal without reasons. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the District Collector to verify claims and inform petitioners of discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to Respondent No. 3-District Collector to verify claim and inform petitioners of discrepancies within 8 weeks.

Viswanatham Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STAIE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERAEAD (Specaal Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANO AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOT,RABIf SRI JUSTIC€ AABHISHEK REOOY

-Pl:TITI()A

O: 5019 OF 2022

Between

l. Ms-vrranatham, S/o Sivarudrappa A€ed about 82 years, occ Ag(rcul{ure Ryo KhudavandapuMllage, Raikode Mandal,Zaheerabad Division. Sanga Reddy distrid

¶9

Kasinath, S/o Sivanrdrappa Aq€d about 8O years, occ Agrio.,lture R/o KhtrdavandapurMllage, Raikode Mandal Zaheerabad Division. Sanga Reddy dislric{

¶10

-.,PETITIONERS

¶11

ANO

¶12

I . The State of Tdarlgana, Rep by.ats Prioci:al Secretary, Reverxre Oepartment Secretariat Buildings, BRI(R Stlavan, Tank bund, Hyderabad

¶13

Ttrc Chief Commissbrer of't-ard Administrati:n, Atrids. Hyrlerabad

¶14

Ihe Oistrid Cdlector. Sanga Reddy diskia

¶15

Ttrc Reveriue DMsional fficer,Zahef,abad Revenue Division. Sanga Rtidy distri:t

¶16

5 fhe Tahsildar, Raikode Mardd, Sanga Reddy districr.

¶17

(R5 C.T. is arnended as per C.O. dt. 1113fm22 io lA.No. 212022 |

¶18

...RESPONOENTS

¶19

Petition under A{tide 226 of the Constitution ot lodia prayiog lhat in the drcumslances stated in ttle affidavit filed therewith, the High Court oriry t)e pleascd lo rssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Oiaeclion. more parlicula.ly onc In thc nature of Writ of Mandamus dedaring the aciioo of the respondents 3 to 5 tlr ool showrog thc Names and lands of the petitkmers lands each Ac IO-OO total extent oI Ac 204O in Sy-Nos-2Z1A and 22-1AA situated at Khudaandapoor villagc. Rarkode Mandal, Zahe€;rabad Divison, Sanga Reddy district in the Dharanr oortal rnte.grated land records management System Government of Telanana as tlrc sJrIlC rs showrrg rn llre status Grievance Reiec{ed as is illegal, arbilrary, contrary to law arrd vrolation of Artide, 3OOA of the Conqtitu(ion of lndia and deprive the nght ol Ilre prop(,'rty aod crnsequeatly d irect the responden(s 3 to 5 to update the pe(rocnrs narnes and lands t-,aclr Ac. 10-OO total extent of Ac. 2O{O in Sy,Nos 2211A and 22 IAA srtuat(}d at Khudavandapur village, Raikode Mandal, Zaheerabad Orvrsron. Sanqa tieddy drstrict in the Dharani Portal as they are the pattadarsof the above said lands

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanccs stated rn tlle affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court ,nay b(r^ple;rse(l I() dr(ect the respondents 3 {o 5 to rectify the mistake shown in^(he Dtrar.Jnr [)or(Jl Status Gricvance Reiec(ed by uploading the petitioners names and la.rds eactr Ac lO OO total extent of Ac 2O{O in Sy,Nos.22llA a^d 22.1AA si(ualed at Klrudavandapu. vrllage. Raikodc Mandal, ZaheerabadDivison. Sanga Reddy drstrtct fortt)wrllr rn tlre Oharani Po(tal antegrated Land Records Management systern^(lovc(nntent of lelangna pending disposal of the Writ pet(ion,

¶22

Counsel for the Pctitiooers : SRI- P- PADMA RAO Counsel for tlre Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE fhe Court made the following : OROER

¶23

,/ '-.

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETIITI N No.SOl9 of 2022

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govemment Pleader for Reven,re for all the respondents. with thcir consent, the Writ Petiticr, is disposed o[ at the stage o[ admission-

¶28

This writ petition is filetl aggrieved try the rejection order passe{ by respondent No.3 orr rhe applicarion Nos-2 lOOO79725 and 2LO4O79743 made by the p::titioners for entering the ir names in Dharani Portal in respect ()[ the subject lands situated a( Khudavandapur Village, Raikode Mandal, Zaheerabad Division, Sarga Reddy District, without assigning any reasons.

¶29

¶30

Lrarned counsel for the Ftitioners has stated that the .petitiooers have made applications through online in Dharali Portal geeking tg enter their names in Dharani Portal in respect of the subject lands. But, thc rcspondent No.3 has rejected the application of the petitioners, vr:thout assigning any reasofls and without communicating his dccision to the p€titioners.

¶31

A perusal of the onliae r-ejcr:tion order passed by respondent No.3 discloses that except rrren' ioning in the status column as "Grievance Rejected", no rca:;ons have been assigncd by rcspondent No.3 for such rej(.ctr()r:

¶32

The rejection order dor:s not spccify any reasons [or the said rejection and unless the .ever)ue authorities specify detailed reasons on the claims o[ farr,crs, it will be difhcult for the individual farmer to assess tire issue and to work out the remcdies available in law. Flrthermorc, minimum conrmunication that is

¶33

¶34

T a I

¶35

¶36

¶37

e-xpected from the revenue authorities is to asdign the reasons for rejection of the application of the petitionerg.

¶38

In view of the same, this 'rvrit petition is allorved and the impugned orders rejecting the request oI the petitioners to enter their names in Dharani Portal in r.spect of the subject lands, is set aside and the matter is remanded^{i:ack to respondent} No.3-District Collector. The District Collector :r; directed to verify tl-re claim of the petitioners vis-i-vis the re'.,t:nue records and irrform thc petitioners as to the nature of dir;crepancy that is noticed b]' thc authorities. On verification of tl:e revenue records, if it is found that earlier exercise was not pro;,erly undertaken and there is merit in the contentions^gf the pelitioners, thc District Collector shall take nece$sary steps. If any clarification is needed,^thc petitioners shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of clariffing the same with relevant records. Thc entire exercise shall br-: completed within a period of cight wceks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

.h-ll h- -n n SD/-P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶41

¶42

NoTE: As^{Per Court Orderdated11-03'2022in} ili-[o z ot^{2021in Causetitlein respondent} it"d'i. ii-"niui. "oir""t"o Sunsu^R€ddv as "The^{oist" Tahslldar' lnstead Raikodeof'The} iri.iio.r. i"iroo"^{raandal,sangaReddvoist''} Sutstituted.^{this amendedorder in place} of earlier^{order, which was dispatchedon} 16-02-2022. SDi-P.PADMANABHA^REDOY asslsralJ-^REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// (:)t) SECTION^OFFICER

¶43

To't Tne Pr,ncioal^{Secretary'RevenueDepartment Secretanat BurldrngsBRKR}

¶44

' itl,r", r!.r ur"d, Siate of Telangana Hvderabad . , in. Ci"f Co..issioner^{of Land Adminrstratron'AbrdsHYderaDac}

¶45

i rne oistrict^{Cottector,Sanga Reddy O'strict'} i iii ii*il"b';Lionar^{oftce''za't'eerabad Revenueorvrsronsa^saReddv} District.

¶46

s in-e^{r]nsrroar. naikode Mandal'SangaReddy District} i o". bti" #r^{P PADMARAo, Advocate[oPucl} i i*" &"i.-cp^{eoR iEVENUE'Highcourt for The Staleof relanganaat} Hyderabad.[OUTI

¶47

Two CD^Copies.

¶48

One^{SPare CoPY.}

¶49

AU TR ,n-r.

¶50

HIGH COURT

¶51

DATED:01/0212022 11t03t2022

¶52

-.::'___-"-
i, ., IAa€ ea
2l stP ?s[L

¶53

AMENDED ORDER WP.No.5019 of 2022

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

M
q''^

Viswanatham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswanatham 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

Putta Raghava Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Kutumbaka Phani and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Bathini Yadagiri and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Smt. K. Bala Kistamma Vs The State of Telangana

Kammari Manemma Vs The State of Telangana

Palugumidi Satyanarayana and another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others