Allowed

Thogiti Vijaya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jul 2023WP/19623/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a combined Writ and inherent jurisdiction petition, the High Court of Telangana set aside the mechanical rejection of the petitioner's application for Rythu Bandhu benefits. The Court directed the District Collector empowered authorities to reconsider the grievance on merits and pass reasoned orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order accepting the plea mentioned in para 5 is set aside. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are directed to re-examine the petitioner's grievance and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders within 2 weeks.

Thogiti Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁶¹ ]

¶2

H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19623 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thogiti Vijaya, Wo. Late Thogiti Deenaiah, Age. 64 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Mannegudem Village, tVedipally Mandal, Jagtial District.

¶9

...PETIT]ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Jagtial District, Jagtial.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Medipally Mandal, Medipally Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District.

¶14

The Mandal Agricultural Officer, Medipally Proper and tvlandal, Jagtial District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No. 2 in passing the orders and sending the same through WhatsApp rejecting the request of the petitioner for extending the Rythu Bandhu Benefits in regarding with her agricultural lands admeasuring Ac. 9.33 gts in Sy. No. 366, situated at Mannegudem Village Shivar, Medipally Mandal, Jagtial District and an extent of Ac. 0.08 gts in Sy. No. 656, situated at Mannegudem Village Shivar, Medipally Mandal, Jagtial District, considering her application dated^'l 1-05-2023, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Consequently set aside the same, thereby direct the respondent authorities to continue the name of the petitioner in the revenue records including in dharani portal and extend the benefits under Rythu Bandhu Scheme in regarding with her land considering the application submitted by her dated 11-O5-2O23

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r )ums ances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Cour ray be pleased to direct the respond e rt authorities to extend the ben,:fits l nrier Rythu Bandhu Scheme to the petrti ,ner in regarding with her lands a,lmeas uring Ac. 9.33 gts in Sy. No. 366, s ituate i at Mannegudem Village Shivar, Medirally Mandal, Jagtial District and an e>.le t of Ac.0.08 gts in Sy. No.656 situaterC at l,4annegudem Village Shiva r, Mer p rlly IVlandal, Jagtial District, consicering her application dated 1 .1 -05-2023

¶19

Counsel for the Peti ioner: SRl. K VENUMADHAV

¶20

Counsel for the Res rondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel for the Res :rondent No.4: AGP FOR AGRICUI-TURI:

¶22

The Court made the l'ollowing: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION o.19623 ot 2023

¶25

ORDERT

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Agriculture appearing on behalf of Respondents.

¶27

2. PERUSED THE RECORD.

¶28

3. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the relief as follows:

¶29

"to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No.2 in passing the orders and sending the same through WhatsApp rejecting the request of the petitioner for extending the Rythu bandhu Benefits in regarding with her agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.g.33 gts In Sy.No.366, situated at Mannegudem village Shivar, Medipally Mandal, lagtial District and an extent of Ac.0.0B gts in Sy.No.656, situated at Mannegudem village Shivar, Medipally Mandal, lagtial District, considering her application dated 11.05.2023, is nothing but illegal and arbitrary and

¶30

:c)n3, .l rently set asicle iiie sarne, ihat .l i,i, .jrieci te -esD( r(jent authorities to continui: tirr: r ;1 1,.. -.6 L1,," tetiti^,ner in the revenue,i-ecorcls irrr;ir-.t,rlr1l in lharani l)oi'tJ , rrr d extr:rrd the benefits und .tr ttytl.r. lancihu lici cr t{ in regctrdincl wilh her ianc i lir,;,.lt,r nq 1s <-rpF li( rtion submitted by the l)etit c n,jr dated 3:.2023 and pass such other o[cler ci or-ciers may deer.n f't and ploper rn the circr_rinstanc,,)s of the cas(1,'

¶31

'4, A. bar:: perusal of the communical:,ion rrcldrr:ssed to the petitio rcrr considering the petitiolrer,s apptication, dated 1:t.t 5.2O23 vide No.GLM23OOO364t4 indicates that it is urrreasoned cryptic order statinq that the petitioner^.equest No,GLM23OOO364grt is rr:rjer:tect by the Collecl ,or, Revenue Departrnent, Gov,:rpp1gp1 o1 Telangana in a mechanical routine !-nann,ar, \A/ithout application rrl' mind,

¶32

The er^-rred Assistant Government pleacJe. f( )r [Levenue appearing or lreharf of Respondents fairry subnrls that the respondent l,os.2 and 4 are the concerned arjtrorities to consider the re:itioner's application, dated 1 l 05.:tt)23

¶33

¶34

(

¶35

Taking into consideration the submissions of the Learned Assistant Government Pleader for^Revenuethe impugned rejection order communicated to^the petitioner through WhatsApp message rejecting petitioner's request for extending the benefits under Rythu Bandhu Scheme to the^petitioner with^{respect to} petitioner's subject lands admeasuring Ac.9.33^gts in Sy.No.366, situated at Mannegudem Village Shivar, Medipally Mandat, Jagtiat District and an extent of Ac.O.O8 gts in sy.No.656, situated at Mannegudem Village shivar, Medipally Mandal, Jagtial District^is hereby setaside and the respondent Nos. 2 and^{4 are} directed to re-consider the^grievance of the^petitioner putforth vide petitioner's application dated 11.O5.2023 on merits and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders, in accordance to law, within a^period of two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, duly communicating the said decision to the^petitioner.

¶36

¶37

7, The^t/\Jrit petition is disposed of with these above

¶38

observatir rns, However, there shall be no orcler as to

¶39

costs,

¶40

Mi:;c.lltneous petitions, if any, pelding :,ha I stand

¶41

c losed

¶42

¶43

SD/.,A.V.S.PRASAD ASSI 3]'AhIT REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY//

¶44

sEcTtoN bFFlcER

¶45

To,

¶46

l.ThePrrncip,al,ecretarytotheRevenueDepartment'Ser;r::tartatBuildings' H vd erabad^.

¶47

ilie Drstrict'lc^{,ector,JagtialDistrict, Jagtial'} 5. iii; irii;ita,i,,^{rvr.oip'.riviliinoar,rr.leoipaiiyProper and lr4arnd.l,Jagtial} Dislrict.

¶48

ine rrrrinoal^{Ar .ir;ulturalofficer, Medipally proper and Mar dal, Jagtial} District.

¶49

One CC to :SF . { VENUIvIADHAV^Advocate [OPLIC] 6. Two CCs to G:) -OR REVENUE,^{High Court for ttre Sti:le lflelangana} lourl

¶50

Two CD CoPte^,

KKS GJPJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:25107,2023

()A
rst\ t
r,$t
1,<br>..t',
.' i'

¶55

ORDER

¶56

WP.No.19623 rf 2023

¶57

DISPOSING O:: THE WP WITHOUT COIiiTS

¶58

E (,,,N
<<br><>

Thogiti Vijaya v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thogiti Vijaya 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

Sri GajulaBhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Jadi Raju Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

Renuka Yellamma Temple, Vs The State of Telangana

Balreddy Gari Krishna Reddy Vs Government of Telangana

M/s. Avani Agri Farms Solutions Vs The State of Telangana

Maroju Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana