Allowed

Kotagalla Raj Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Feb 2022WP/851/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his Dharani application to remove land from the prohibitory list as Wakf land, arguing the authority failed to provide reasons. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that recording reasons is a mandatory requirement for quasi-judicial authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondent No.2 directed to record reasons for the rejection rather than just endorsing 'grievance rejected'.

Kotagalla Raj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IVONDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 8 51 0F 2022

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Kotagalla Raj Kumar, S/o, Sriramulu, Aqed 38 vears, Occ Business. Rio. H.No.591/A, Kongarakurdu (Ravirala Viilagel, Ivlahdshwaram l,4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Maheshwaram lri4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in rejecting petitioners Dharani Application Ref. No.210012674, d1.2911112021 for deletion of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.52 of Kongakurd (A) Revenue Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from Prohibitory property list, without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and against Article 300-4 of Constitutional of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioners Dharani Application Ref. No.210012674, dt.2911112021 'for deletion of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.52 of Kongakurd (A) Revenue Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from Prohibitory property list.

¶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 direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to reconsider the petitioners Dharani Application Ref. No.210012674, dt.2911112021 fot deletion of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.52 of Kongakurd (A) Revenue Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Prohibitory property, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

rb-'

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B, VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No,851 of 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that the dharani application submitted by the petitioner vide ref. No.210012674 dated 29 "11.202t for removing the subject land from the prohibitory list was rejected without giving any reasons by endorsing 'grievance rejected'.

¶25

The petitioner ciaims to the owner and possessor oi the Ac.1"00 guntas of Iand in Sy.No.52 of Kongakurd (A) Revenue Viilage, Maheshwarama Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict. He was issued occupancy rights certificate vide proceedings No.J/1733/2014 dated 24.07.201,9. The petitioner verified the Dharani website and found that the land in an extent of Ac.1.32 guntas was shown in the prohibitory Iist as wakf land. According to the petitioner, the Iand in Sy.No.52, as per dharani, to an extent of Ac"1.32 guntas was recorded in the name of one Jamma Chinna Balaiah, an extent of Ac.1,00 guntas was recorded in his name and another extent of Ac.0.01 guntas was recorded in the name of Bathula Ramesh. However, the land of the petitioner is notified as Wakf land. The land in Sy.No.52 to an extent of Ac.1.00 belonging to the petitioner has got nothing to do with the Wakf and the same

¶26

was clarified^{by theTahsildar,Maheshwaramvide} Lr.No.Bll1r4/2019^{dated 06.05.2019 The petitioner made dharani} application through^{the DharaniPortal'However,without assigning} any reasons,^{the impugnedorder was passedwith an endorsement} 'grievance^rejected'.

¶27

Learned Assistant^{Government PleaderforRevenue} submitted that^{appropriate orders by passed by this Court'}

¶28

In view of the^{abovefacts and circumstances,the writ} petition is allowed on the^{ground that reasons have not been} recorded by the^{respondent No.2. The respondentNo'2' beinq a} quasi-judicial authority,^{it is incumbent upon him to recordreasons'} as otherwise it^{woutd run contrary to the establishedprocedure} under Iaw. Unless^{reasons are recorded,the aggrlevedpartywould} not be in a^{positionto know as to the groundson which his/her} claim is rejected.^{Moreover, the very object of adjudicationis to} ensure that^{parties haveevery right to knowthe reasonsandso} also to work out^{further remedies available to the parties to} approach the^{higher forumsor Courts lt is settled law that an} authority, whether^{administrativeor quasi-judicial,is expected to} record reasons.^{The respondent No.2 has passed a single line} endorsement'grievance^{reiected' and the same is unsustalnable'}

¶29

¶30

¶31

The writ petition is allowed.^pending miscellaneous petitions,

¶32

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

¶33

SDIK.AMMAJI

¶34

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .EcrtJi#----FrcER 'rRUE^coPY/'

¶35

.EcrtJi#----FrcER

¶36

To, 1 . The Principal Secretary,^{State of Telangana,Departmentof Revenue,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶37

The District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶38

The Tahsildar, [\ilaheshwaram^{lt4andal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶39

One CC to SRl.^{K JAGADISHWARREDDYAdvocateIOPUC]}

¶40

5.TwoCCstoGPFORREVENUE(TG),HighCoudfortheStateofTelangana tourl

¶41

Two CD Copies

¶42

One Spare Copy SML sB r- Lr

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 410212022

ORDER

WP.No.851 of 2022

tr .t t1 L 'i4
o
! c,
t
1 g APri 2022
* +
<br>

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶50

<br>

Kotagalla Raj Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotagalla Raj Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Chintala Manemma Vs The State of Telangana

Jyothi Mahesh Bhai Vs State of Telangana

Dr.K.Sharada Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Mohd. Shabbir Khan Vs The State of Telangana

R. Anitha Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mohammed Owais Vs The State of Telangana