Dismissed

Koshika Srisailam v. The State of Telangana and 14 others

Telangana HC7 Feb 2023WP/1243/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Tahsildar entertaining documents despite a civil decree cancelling a sale agreement. The Court observed no adjudication was needed as the lower authority rejected the petitioner's application due to missing documents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a fresh application with complete documents on the Dharani portal; respondents to consider it within three weeks.

Koshika Srisailam Vs The State of Telangana and 14 others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s5 J

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1243 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Koshika Srisailam, S/o. Late Sattaiah, Age 60 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. 2- 27, Torrur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, Rangareddy District, at Aadibatla.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Abdullapurpet Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶15

P Sridhar Rao, S/o Ragavender Rao, Aged about42 Years Occ Business R/o 16- 1- 486lcl4 Saidabad Hyderabad.

¶16

Smt V Veena, Wio V Sudhakar Aged about 47 Years, Occ Housewife R/o¹ 1- 136- 1 368/404, Margadarshi Colony SaroornagarMandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

Meeka Nageshwar Rao. S/o M Narasimulu, Aged about 53 Years Occ Business R/o Plot No 4,SaiSaptagiri Colony L B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

G Kishore Reddy, S/o Manohar Reddy, Aged about 38 Years Occ Business R/o 119- 5- 2l,Bahadurpura Hyderabad

¶19

V Srikanth, S/o V Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 39 Years, Occ Business, R/o Kanyakal Village NidamanoorMandal Nalgonda District

¶20

V Sudhakar, S/o Janardhan Aged about 5l Years, Occ Business, R/o 1'l1 36-'l 368/404 Margadarshi Colony SaroomagarMandalRanga Reddy District

¶21

P Venkata Ranga Reddy, Sio P Malla Reddy, Aged about 42 Years, Occ Business, Rlo 11- 4- 322113 G3 KindiBasthiChilakalaguda Secunderabad

¶22

1 1. Mutra Raja Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy Aged about 67 Years, Occ Business, R/o Flat No 203 2nd Floor Plot No 173 Nagasri Residency Bhagyalakshmi Colony Subash Nagar Jeedimetla Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

12.Sama Sekhar Reddy, S/o Late Raji Reddy Aged about 52 Years Occ Business Rlo 2- 252 Plot No 30 Saheb Nagar Vanasthalipuram Ranga Reddy District

¶24

Chitti llaiah, S/o Late C Jangaiah Aged about 58 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Dandumailaram Village lbrahimpatnamMandal Ranga Reddy District

¶25

B Narasimha Reddy, S/o Chinna Narayan Reddy Aged about 66 Years Occ Agriculture R/o lnjapur Village HayathnagarMandal Ranga Reddy District

¶26

15- Narra Gopal Reddy, S/o. Ramreddy, Age 47 years, occ Agriculture, Torrur Village, HayathnagarMandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any order or direction writ or writs more particularly on in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in entertaining the documents /Deeds presented by the Respondent No. 7, in favour of Respondent No. 15 in respect of the land to an extent of land Ac. 2.39 gts, in Sy. No. 385 of Torrur Village, Abdullapurpet Mandal, covered under the decree in O.S. No.139/2012, and during the pendency of AS.No.160 of 202'l and AS.No. 16112021, before this Hon'ble court, is illegal, arbitrary, and consequently to direct the Respondent NO. 3 not to entertain any documents if presented by the Respondents No. 5 to 15, in respect of the land to extent of Ac. 2.39 gts, in Sy. No. 385 of Torrur Village, Abdullapurpet Mandal.

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶30

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. 3 not to entertain any documents if^presented by the Respondents No. 5 to 15, in respect of the land to extent of Ac. 2.39^gts, in Sy. No. 385 of Torrur Village, Abdullapurpet Mandal,^pending disposal of the writ petition-

¶31

Counsel forthe Petitioner : SRl. D Y L N CHARYULU

¶32

Counsel forthe Respondent No.l to 3: SRl. B. MURALI, AGP FOR REVENUE Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 15 : NONE APPEARED

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1243 of 2023

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Murali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶37

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 in entertaining registration of the documents presented by respondent No.7 in favour of respondent No. 15 in respect land to an extent of Ac.2-39 guntas in Survey No.385 of Torrur Viilage, Abdullapurmet Mandal, on the ground that the Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney that was executed in favour of respondent No.7 is cancelled by the competent Civil Court in a suit frled by the petitioner in O.S.No. 139 of 2012 and in spite of cancelling the said Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, respondent No.3 is acting upon the said cancelled Agreement of sale-cumGeneral Power of Attorney and entertaining registrations.

¶38

It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petilioner has already submitted an application by uploading tJle^judgment in O.S.No.139 of 2Ol2 on online Dharani portal by bringing the same to the notice to respondent No.3 with a request not to entertain any

¶39

¶40

transactions at the instance of respondent No.7. However, according to learned counsel lor the petitioner, respondent No.3, instead of blocking transactions in respect of the properties, which are covered by cancelled Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, is entertaining registraticns.

¶41

Sri B.Murali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed before this Court the written instructions received from respondend No.3, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has only uploaded copy of the judgment in O.S.No. 139 of 2012 but not upioaded the schedule of property and other details. For want of the same, the application submitted by the petitioner is already rejected by respondent No.3.

¶42

In the light of the above and taking into consideration the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.3 is already rejected, no adjudication need be made in this writ^petition. However, it^is open for the petitioner to make a fresh application by enclosing all the required documents and upload the same on Dharani portal and in case, if the petitioner makes any such application on Dharani portal supported by all relevant documents, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same and take

¶43

¶44

appropriate action, in accordance with 1aw, within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of such application by the petitioner.

¶45

6 With the above direction, the Writ Petition is

¶46

disposed of.

¶47

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶48

petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

SD/-T.SRINI AS DEPUTY REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION CER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State ofTelangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶54

The District Collector, Rangareddy District, at Aadibatla.

¶55

The Tahsildar, Abdullapurpet^{Mandal, Rangareddy Diskict.} 4. One CC to SRl. D Y L N CHARYULU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana^at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

Two CD Copies

kar

BS (J5

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710212023

1 9.6 3'TAT6
( i<br>(<
,J
t4 ttB 8E '
I '/
ii:- '.'t "'
---.-..-,,

¶64

ORDER

¶65

WP.No.1243 ot 2023

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶67

WITHOUT COSTS

Koshika Srisailam v. The State of Telangana and 14 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koshika Srisailam v. The State of Telangana and 14 others

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

Manthena Udaya Bhaskar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Kumaraswamy Kolla and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

N. Nishanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bondla Nagamani And 2 Others Vs State of Telangana And 3 Others

Uma Packaging Vs The State of Telangana

Sriramula Nagaaraju Vs The State of Telangana