Dismissed

Dappu Radhika v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Dec 2023WP/28357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the legality of agricultural land mutation proceedings. The Court held that since an effective civil remedy (suit for partition and declaration) was already pending, the writ petition was not entertained, with the liberty to urge grounds in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with liberty to the petitioner to urge all legal grounds in the pending civil suit.

Dappu Radhika Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

a[ 318s ]

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION O: 28357 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dappu Radhika, D/o. Dappu Laxmaiah, Aged about 20 years, Occ Private !1p!oye_e,^{No. 3- 712, AziznagarVillage, Moinabad Maridat,Ranga Reddy} District, Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Tank, Bund, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Moinabad [Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distriat, Tetangana State. 3. Dappu Laxmaiah, S/o. DappuDharmaiah, Aged about 51 years Occ Agriculture, resldents of 3-712, Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal,RR District, Telangana State.

¶13

Dappu Rajamani, W/o. Dappulaxmaiah, Aged about 51 years Occ Agriculture, residents of 3-712, Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal,RR District, Telangana State.

¶14

Dappu Rajshekhar, S/o. Dappulaxmaiah, Aged about 51 years Occ Agriculture, Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are all residents ol 3-712, Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal,RR District, Telangana State.

¶15

Munjagalla Raj Kumar, S/o. M. Babaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ Business, Fl/o. H. No. 3- T9,Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal,RR District, Telangana State.

¶16

Pathapatla Arvind Goud, S/o. P. Krishnaiah Goud, Aged about 41 years, Occ Business, FUo. Flat No. 30'l, Megha Enclave, H. No. 3-20-55, Westend Colony, Gandhamguda, Rajendernagar Mandal, RR District. Telangana State.

¶17

Katakineni Taher Mahi, S/o. K. Mahipathi Rao, Aged about 56 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 1- 2- 28812311 , Domalguda, Hyderabad. 29

¶18

Ani Reddy Anil Reddy, S/o. A. Balakrishna Reddy, Aged about 64 years Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 8-2-2931821N93811, Road No. 47, Jubilee Hills, HYderabad 33

¶19

...RES'.NDENT'

¶20

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 an appropriate Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2

¶21

herein in mutating the agricultural land in Sy. No. 72 area admeasuring Ac. 1- 29 gts situated al Aziznagar Village and Gram panchayat, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favor of unofficial Respondent No.7 vide proceedings in 8.1230812016 dated 25-1 1-2016 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 21, 300(4) of the constitution of lndia and as also the provisions of relangana Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Book Act^.1971

¶22

fA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that ih the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to alienate the agricultural land in sy. No. 72 area admeasuring Ac. 1- 29 gts situated at Aziznag Village and Gram panchayat, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶24

lA NO: 2 oF 2023

¶25

Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend proceedings in E.1230812016 dated 25-11-2016 in respect of the agricultural land in sy.No.72 area admeasuring Ac. 1-2g gts situated at Aziznagar Village and Gram^panchayat, Ir4oinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NANCHARLA MURALI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI TARUN G. REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3tog: None Appeared

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN IIE,DDY

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.28357 OF 2023

¶33

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶34

This writ petition is fited seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in mutating the name of respondent No.1 vide mutation proceedings No.B/2308/2016, dated 25.11.2016, in favour of respondent No.7 in respect of the land adrneasuring Ac.l-29 gunlas in Survey No.72, sitauted at Aziznagar Vitlage and Grarr Panchayat, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional

¶35

Heard [eamed counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue and leamed counsel for respondents No.9 and perused the material available on record

¶36

It is submitted that the subject land is a joint family property of the petitioner and originally, Mr. Dappu Dharmaiah, thc paternal great grandfather of the petitioner, was the owner and possessor of the subject land. After his demise, the land was succeeded by the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 as legal heirs of Mr. Dappu Dharmaiah and since then, the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 had been in peaceful possession enjoyment of the subject land. White

¶37

¶38

)

¶39

things stood thus, respondents No.3 to 5 clandestinely and illegally alienated the subject tand, which is the ancestral property, to respondent No.3 and after series of transactions, the subject land had been sold to respondent No.9 under registered sale deed bearing document No.18109 of2019. dated 15.10.2019.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.9 raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that the pctitioner and his brorher filed O.S. No.3l3 of 2022 for declaration of thc registered Agreernent of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.3010 of 2015, dated I I .06.201 5, the registered sale deeds bearing document No.3 109 of 2019, dated 22.06.2015,5343 of 2017, dated 28.08.2017 and l8t0l of 2019,, dated. 15.10.2019 as null and void and for partition and separate possession on the file oflearned Junior Civit Judge, Chevella in respect of the subject land. That respondent No.9 filed O.S. No.432 of 2023 for injunction against respondents No.3 to 5 which is pending.

¶41

Responding to such contention, leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner came to know about the impugned mutation proceedings only when written statement was filed by respondent No.9 in O.S. No.3 13 of 2022. The impugned mutation

¶42

¶43

¶44

proceedings are passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and the procedure of the Telangana fughts in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l971and the rules made there under. The petitioner is a member of the^joint family and having coparcenary interest over the subject land. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mutation proceedings would come in the way of the petitionerⁱⁿ effectively pursuing the O.S. No.3 13 of 2022, as such he is constrained to approach this Court.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent No.9 submitted that the impugned proceedings were issued in favour of resportdcnt^{No.7 and} subsequently, there was transfer of title to respondent^{No.8 in respect} of the subject land and thereafter to respondent No.9^{and mutation} proceedings issued in favour of respondqnts No.8 and t have^{not been} challenged in the present writ petition. Respondent^{No.7does not have} interest over the subject land anymore as of now.^{Thus,the writ} petition is liable to be dismissed

¶46

Taking into consideration of the fact that the^{petitioner has} invoked effective civil law remedy and^{already instituted} comprehensive suit in O.S. No.3 13 of^{2022 and the claim of the} petitioner as to the validity of impugned^{mutation proceedings issued}

--F

t..

/:-

by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.7 can as well be agitated before the trial Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶52

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to urge atl legal grounds raised in this writ petition, in the pending suit referred to above. It is needless to point out that the trial Court shall decide the suit on merits without being influenced by any of the obser-vations made in this order. Notice to respondents No.3 to 9 is dispensed with as no adverse orders are passed against them.

¶53

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

¶55

in the writ petition stand closed.

¶56

SD/- K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ASSISTANT^REGIST,RAR

//TRUE COPY//

,U,/ SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary (Revenue)' Govemment^{of Telangana' Secretariat'} Tank, Bund,^{T.S.,HYderabad.} z. ifrlj i"r'iira'ar,^{irtbln'aoranr"ndf, Rqlsq Redqv District'Telalgana State' .} 5. +;; bt;'6-cp^{Fon nevEr.ruE', ,riiglicourt ror the State of Telansana,at} Hvderabad [OUT] 4 iji;-bddSRr.^{tnnuuG. REDDY, Agvgc.ate tgPgq.} ^- E. 6li; dd 6^{SRt. NAr.rcnnnln MURALI, Advocate[oPUC]} 6. Two t's-V-^{CD CoPies}

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11212023

ORDER

WP.No.28357 of 2023

1 tlE STA IG
q
30f S J AN 2024 a
* i
Es FATc

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

Dappu Radhika v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dappu Radhika 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

Mr. Vankayyala Sailu Vs State of Telangana

Arepally Durgamma Vs The State of Telangana

Shree Manjunatha Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Thammala Srinivas Vs Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao

Smt.Siriga Satya Bai Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Samudrala Jagathaiah Vs The State of Telangana