Dismissed

Kolkonda Anutej v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jul 2023WP/14890/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a Writ Petition and an Order under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner challenging the inclusion of entries in revenue records against his rights. The High Court held that the petitioner's application was merely a letter, not a valid appeal, as it lacked the required stamp, proper format, and was filed belatedly without condonation of delay. Relying on a precedent, the

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the application filed under Section 151 CPC were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kolkonda Anutej Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

[³²⁵² ]

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

¶6

MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 14890 OF 2O2O

¶10

Between

¶11

Kolkonda Anutej, S/o Madhusudhan, Aged about 30 years, Occ Business, R/o D.No.7-1-4211 , Nagashwarawada, Nirmal Town, Adilabad District.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Division, Nirmal District.

¶16

Tahsildar, Dilawarpur Mandal, Nirmal District.

¶17

Mudyadapu Muthavva, Wio Gangaram, Aged about 72 years, Occ. House wife, Fyo Madegaon Village, Dilawarpur Mandal, Nirmal Didtrict.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more so, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the in action of the 2nd respondent, in not considering Petitioner application dated 25.06.2020 for deletion of the wrong entries in the revenue records and Dharani Portal in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.7.18 guntas in Sy.No.301/A at Malegaon village, Dilawarpur Mandal, Adilabad District, by conducting an enquiry as arbitrary, illegal and unlawful and contrary to law and consequentially to direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders on petitioner application by concluding the enquiry without further delay.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the^petitioner dated 25.06.2020, for deletion of the entries in the revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.7.18 guntas in Sy.No.301/A at I\Ialegaon village, Dilawarpur Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. G VASANTHA RAYUDU

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 : SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITIoNNo.148 00F 2020

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard tearned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pteader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 and learned counset appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶28

2 The petitioner approached the court seeking the Prayer as follows:

¶29

"to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more so, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the in action oF the 2nd respondent, in not considering petitioner application dated 25.06.2 020 for detetion of the wrong entries in the revenue records and Dharani portal in respect oF the. land admeasuring Ac.7.1B guntas in Sy.No.301/A at Maiegaon viilage, Dilawarpur Mandal, Adilabad Districi by conducting an enquiry as arbitrary, illegal and unlawful and contrary to law and c 2nd responde",," o.rr"J;"1r"J'"# Jo :::::" T; concluding the enquiry without further delay and may pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may be pleased tr rit and proper in the interest of jusrice ""0 "*:,;,:

¶30

The case^{of the petitioneras per the letter of the} petitioner^{dated 25'06'2O20 addressed to the Revenue} Division,^{NirmalDistrict'} Divisionat^{Officer'Nirmal} which^{is acknowledgedtly the Office of the} Revenue Divisional^{Officer' Nirmalnis as under:}

¶31

Smt.tvludyadam^{Pedda Muthubai!v/o Bhurnanna} R/o^{Dilavarpurvillage & mandalwas the pattedar} and^{ourner of the patta land in Sy'No 301/A to an} extent^{of Ac'7-18 Gts situatedat Malegarn village} of Dilavarpur^{mandaland she was issuedPPB/TD} No.R-154423^{with KhathaNo'241 for the said land'} She^{executed registeredglft settlementdeed for the} said land^{in my 1'avour vide doc'No'7111/2012'} dt.15.1i.2012^{and I am inpossessionand} enjoyment^{of the lancl ever since from the date of} tne OeeO.^{But, i could not made granted mutation} of the^{Iand in my name in view of my studies and} employment^{due tc' which the name of my grand} mother^{Smi' Mudyadam PeddaMuthubai was} continuing^{in revenue recordspaftedar' Now'it has} cometomynoticethatbytakingtheacivantageof similarity^{of the nameone Smt'MudyadamChinna} Muthubai^{W/o Gangaramwho is the own younger} sister of^{my late grand motherhas managed the} Revenue^{Officials incollusion with her son} (Mudyadam^{Muthvamwho is anti-social element)}

I I I I

ll I j

I I I I I

I I l l

have entered irregularly and illegally the name of Smt. Mudyadam Muthavva W/o Gangaram as pattedar and owner of the land in the LRup/Dharani portal direcfly without any authenticated document or mutation during the year 2019. Accordingly, she was issued pattedar pass book_cum-title deed No.___- with same Khatha No.241 which was previously allotted to my late grand mother Smt.Mudyadam pedda Muthubai W/o Bhumanna illegally and irregularly and without basis.

¶38

Therefore, I request to kindly arrange to delete the name of the said Smt. Mudyadam Muthavva W/o Gangaram from the LRUp/Dharani portal & revenue records and also to cancel the ppB_cum_TD issued in her name. I further, request to kindly to record the said land in my name duly issuing pattedar pass book-cum-tiUe deed duly rectifying the wrong entry made in the name of Mudyadam Muthavva W/o Gangaram at the earliest.,,

¶39

4, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 brings on record the judgment dated 06.09.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.l6g9t an<t 24863 of 2013 in the case of J. Krish na macha ri Vs. State, Government of Andhra pradesh and others reported in

¶40

:::,jf .:{

¶41

¶42

relies^uPon 2Ot4^{(1)ALD 4O6 and inParticular} paragraph^{No'15 which reads as under:}

¶43

"(1) An^{appeal against every order ofthe} Mandal^{RevenueOfficer either makingan} amendment^{in the Record of Rights or refusing} to make^{such amendmentshall lie under sub-} section^{(5) of Section 5 of the Act' tothe} officer/^Sub- Divisional Revenue Collector/^{AssistantCollectoror such authority} as may^{be notified by the Commissioner'}

¶44

(2) Every^{appealreterred to in sub-rule (1) shall be} in writinq^{and shall set forth conciselythe grounds} thereof^{withina period of sixty days from the date} of communication^{of the order and shallbe} accompanied^{by a copy of the orderappealed} against.

¶45

(3) Every^{appeal referred to in sub-rule(2) above'} shall^{bear a Court-fee stamp of rupeesfive only.''}

¶46

Admittedly,^{neither the so-caltedpetitionis in} the form^{of appealaffixedwith the required} stamp^{nor was filed irr time'No applicationfor} condonation^{of delay was claimedto be filed} by respondent^{No'4 nor respondent No'2} passed any^{order condoning the delay before} entertaining^{and adjudicatingthe appeal on}

¶47

¶48

I I

¶49

merits. Responden thererore, "r.".,j,,l"r' ;'"t' rll,.llrt" ..; respondent No.4 an treated it as an appeal' rf respondent No.4 issuance or patta# ,:::""Tt r,? ,,tJ"' deeds, he should ha under section u(r) J,".1:'l.,T]llT:H: limit, or a civil suit Act berore *,e compe1llffi::';.::l ;:::; not take recourse to either of the two remedies, it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to e the petition filed by respondent No.4, Intertain akin to the power ,"'"".::'il:ffi;::"-::J under Section 9 of the Act.,,

¶50

5 Taking into consideration the view taken try the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad tn identical iircumstances in the judgment .dated 06.09.2013 passed in W.p.Nos.t689l and 24863 ot Zoir3,this Court opines that the petitioner herein is not entiUed for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition since a bare perusal of the letter of the petitioner dated 25.06.2020 (referred to and extracted above) clearty indicates that at is onry a tetter and the same as not in the form of appear with the required stamp affixed to it.

¶51

,lit

¶52

Accordingly,^{the preser:t writ petition is dismissed'} Hor,vever,^{it is open to the petitionerto avail remedyas} available^{under law' However'there shall be no order}

¶53

as to^costs.

¶54

Miscellarreous^{petrlions,ifany' pendinqin this Writ}

¶55

Petition,^{shail standclosed '}

¶56

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANI.REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// sEckfi{^oFFrcER

¶57

'O,.,. 2^ONU Two^CC ccs^{tO SRI. to Gp G r&"ri'rv'ririul VASANTHARAYUDU'-AdVOCAIE-[OPUC],iign borrt ioi fli" State of Telansana at} HYderabad. [OUTI

¶58

One CC^{to SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLA' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶59

¶60

Two CD^CoPies

SB sw,,/

I l

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1010712023

,.it'
NB ll
') I
t\ \ii
I
,,-j
. \ ..)., ,,/ . .... ./
'--. * ;r, i'r, -
- -. -.i..i-, -:--

¶67

ORDER

¶68

WP.No.14890^{of 2020}

¶69

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

¶71

Kolkonda Anutej v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolkonda Anutej 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chukka Krishna Goud Vs The State cf Telangana

K. Somavathi Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Madanu Mariamma Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Patnam Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Ruknuddin Ghouri Vs The State of Telangana

Karrem Narayana Vs The State of Telangana