Disposed

Smt.Margam Sandhya Rani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Dec 2023WP/10328/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of revenue authorities in mutating petitioners' names and issuing passbooks. The court directed specific respondents to consider the petitioners' Dharani application with notice and pass orders within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider Dharani application No.2300066129, issue notices, and pass orders for mutation within 45 days without costs.

Smt.Margam Sandhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENWTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEB.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PE^{TlTloNNO: 10328OF 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt.Margam Sandhya Rani^{W/o Kamalakar nOe.d.aO.oyl. j7years,Occ} ioJi"*iie, R/o^{pall6vetpula villageHanmakonda MandalWarangal District,} T,S

¶9

Sri Mundrai Nagaralu, S/o Rambrahmam^{Aged about} 39 years, Occ. Business,^R/o AQuarter No.T2-108 lncline colony Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana.^{Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,} Secretariat,^{Hyderabad.T. S.}

¶13

¶14

¶15

The District Collector.^{Karimnagar District, T.S.}

¶16

The Special Deputy Collector,^{(L A) Karimnagar.}

¶17

4 The Revenue Divisional^{officer. Thimmapur Division, KarimnagarDistrict,} T,S,

¶18

¶19

The Tahsildar, Thimmapur^{Mandal, KarimnagarDistrict,T.S}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitution of lndia pfaying that in the} circur tstances stated^{in the affrdavit filed therewith,the High court maybe} pleas:d to issue a writ or^{drrectionmore particularly in the nature of a writ of} Manc lmus declaring^{the inactron of the respondentsin mutating the namesof the} petitir ners in revenue records^{in respect of landin Sy No 506 admeasuring Ac 1-} 00 t r 0.40^{hectors situated at Nallagondavillage, Thimmapur lvlandal.} Karin,nagar District^{by issuing the newpattadar passbookand title deed to the} petiti( ners as illegal, arbitrary^{andin violationof principlesof natural justice and} cons€ quently direct^{the respondents to mutate the namesof the petitionersin the}

¶22

¶23

reven^{ile records and to assuenew pattadar passbooks and title deedsln their} narne in^{respect of land in Sy No 506 admeasuring Ac 1-00 or 0 40 hectors} situat ;d at^{Nallagonda village,ThimmapurMandal'Karimnagar Districtby} consi .lering^{the representationsof the petitionersin the interestof iustice and} equit'.

¶24

lAN(:1^{oF 2022}

¶25

Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theafidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedto direcltherespondentshereintoconsidertherepresentationsoflhepetitionersby mutai ng the^{land in theirnames and to issue new pattadar passbook and title} de(-.d In their^{namean respectof land in Sy'No 506 admeasuring Ac 1-00 or 0.40} he()tc s situated^{at Nallagonda village, Thimmapur Mandal' KarimnagarDistrict'}

¶26

Coun;el for^{the Petitioner: SRI INDRAGANTI MADHUSARMA}

¶27

Coun iel for^{the Respondents: ASST' GP FOR REVENUE}

¶28

The⁽ ourt^{made the following:ORDER}

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.^{VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.10328 OF 2022

¶31

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶32

This writ petition is filed by^{the petitioners seekingto} declare action of respondents in^{not mutating theirnames in the} revenue records and not issuing^{new pattadar passbooks in respect} olthe land admeasuring Ac.1-00^{guntas in SurveyNo.506,situated} at Nallagonda Village, Thimmapur^{Mandal, Karimnagar District,} as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitionersand learned} Assistant Government Pleader for^{Revenue appearingfor} respondents and^perused the^{materialavailable on record.}

¶34

i. tt is claimed that the^{petitionersare the owners and} possessors of the subject land having^{purchasedthe same under} registered sale deed bearing document^{No.2093of 20 13, dated} 23.0i.2013 from Smt.^{Vangala Vasantha and Smt. Vangala} Srilatha. It is submitted^{that the petitioners approached respondent} No.4 tbr mutation of their^{namesin the revenue records in respect} of the subject land and^{theywere informedthat the subjectland}

¶35

¶36

was acquired by the Government flor the purpose ol Srujata Sravanthi Canal, as such, the mutation cannot be done On enquiry, the petitioners found out that the canal is passing through the neighbouring land and on application being submitted by the petitioners, the survey was conducted on I 7.0 I .20 l9 and the boundaries were fixed which made clear that the canal is passing through the neighbouring land. The petitioners submitted representations dated 14.03.2019, 1i.05.2019, 05.06.2021 and 13.07.2021 for mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject land but no action has been taken. On being advised, the petitioners submitted Dharani application No.2300066129, dated 24.04.2023, tbr mutation of their names in the revenue records and for issuing new pattadar passbooks in respect of the subject land but the petitioners did not receive any response. The grievance of the petitioners is that there is delay on the part of respondents tn disposing of their application/ representations, as such, they are constrained to approach this Court.

¶37

¶38

Learned Assistant Government^Pleader lor^Revenue submitted that appropriate action will be taken on^the Dharni application of the petitioners, in accordance^{with larv.}

¶39

Recording the aforesaid submission, the "vrit^{petition is} disposed of directing^{respondents No.2 and 5 to consider} petitioner's Dharani application^No.23000661 29,^dated 24.04.2023, for mutation of their^{namesin the revenue records and} for issuing new^{pattadarpassbooks} tn respect of the land admeasuring Ac.l-00^{guntas in} Sun,ey No.506, situated at Nallagonda Village, Thimmapur^{Mandal, KarimnagarDistrict,by} issuing notice to all concemed/interested^{persons, and pass orders,} in accordance with law, within^{a periodof torty Irve (45)daysfrom} the date of receipt ofa copy olthis^{order. Thcreshall be no order} as to costs.

¶40

Asa sequel thereto,^{misccllaneousapplications,}

¶41

if any, pending in the writ^{petitionstand closed}

¶42

_ _*,---l

¶43

or.'r,oi'?Ji5flt'Ilf; //TRUE coPY/l sEcTtoN^O*rrcen

¶44

To,

¶45

The Principal^{Secretary, Revenue Department'Secretariat'Hyderabad'State}

¶46

. , ?trI"J?S,?3i"C"[;ta",,^{Karimnasar.Distrrct T s} 5 iii; $AAl^{GputvCollector'(L A) Karrmnasal} 4 The Revenue^{Divisronaj"iiiii,lir'f r,unrnap"urDivisron. KarimnagarDistrict'} T,S.. @

¶47

The Tahsildar, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District, T.S 6. One CC to SRI INDRAGANTI I\4ADHU SARMA, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶48

Two CD Copies. BSK BS

lNB-

HIIG H COURT

D,A"ED:1411212023

OR.)ER

1HE sI{ 16:
o
oo 1 2 JAIJ 202t a z

o s PA,T C eO

¶55

WP No.10328 of 2022

¶56

DUS POSING OF THE WRIT PETITION W'I'I HOUT COSTS

Smt.Margam Sandhya Rani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Margam Sandhya Rani 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

Mohd Zahed Hussain and 13 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

P.Sai Kumar,and 21 Vs Govt.of Telangana,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 4

Manga Mallamma, Karimnagar Dist. and 4 Others Vs the Kakatiya Urban Dev. Auth. Warangal and 2 Others

Sri. Gottuparthi Adinarayana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Bosam Sanjeeva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bokka Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana