Allowed

Dundigalla Bal Rajesham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2023WP/31478/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a rejection order against the petitioners application to remove agricultural land from the prohibited properties list in the Dharani portal. The Court found the order bereft of reasons and in violation of natural justice, directing respondents to examine the application within eight weeks after providing a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the rejection order; direct respondents to examine the application and pass orders within eight weeks after granting personal hearing.

Dundigalla Bal Rajesham Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^BHASKARREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31478 OF²⁰²³

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dundigalla Bal Rajesham, S/o. Pentqiah,^nSer Z9^{years, Occ. Business, R/o} H.No.l-34, Shanker Nagar, Siddipet^{Town and District.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

The District Collector and Magistrate,^{Siddipet, SiddipetDistrict.}

¶14

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Siddipet Revenue Division, Siddipet, Siddipet} District.

¶15

4 The Tahsildar and Joint sub-Registrar,^{chinnakodurMandal,siddipetDistrict.}

¶16

¶17

The District Cooperative Officer, Siddipet,^{SiddipetDistrict-}

¶18

6 Sri Laxmi Nivas Puri Threemurthi,^{CooperativeJoint Farming SocietyLtd,} Allipur Vrllage, Chinnakodur^{l\rlandal, Rep. by itsPresidenUChief} Promoter/Authorized signatory,^{SiddipetDistrict.}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 onein} the nature of wrrt of Mandamus^{declaringthe rejection order, dated.Nllpassed by} the Respondent No.2^pursuant to^{the onlineDharani application madeby the} Petitioner vide Application/reference^{No- 2200069525 and further declare the} Proceedings of the 5 Respondent^{vide Rc.No. 1325/201g/NC, dated29-12-2022} as illegal, arbitrary, violation of^{Principlesof Naturaljusticeand contraryto the} provisions of Act 7 of 1964, Act 9 of 2O2O and set^{aside the same and} consequently direct^{the Respondents herein more particularlythe Respondent}

¶21

No.2 to delete/remove the Sy.No. 37142 lo an extent of Ac. 12- 02 Gts, Sy.No. 35/AA to an extent of 7-15 Gts, Sy.No. 36 to an extent of Ac. 10-15 Gts, total admeasuring to an extent of Ac 30-02 gts, situated at Allipur village, Chinnakodur A/andal, Siddipet District from the prohibited Property List in the interest of^justice.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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 suspend the operation of the Proceedings issued/passed by the Respondent No.5 vide Rc.No. 1325/201SINC, dated. 29-12-2022 pending disposal of the Writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶25

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 Respondents herein to grant/release the Rythu Bandu Amounts/Agriculture rnvestment Support Schemes including Rythu Bima/Farmers lnsurance scheme to the Petitioner agriculture land i.e.; in Sy.No. 371A2 to an extent of Ac. 12-02 Gts, Sy.No. 35/AA to an extent of 7-15 Gts, Sy,No. 36 to an extent of Ac. 10-15 Gts, total admeasuring to an extent of Ac 30-02 gts, situated at Allipur village, chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District pending disposal of the Writ petition in the interest of .lustice.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.ARJUN RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.s: GP FOR COOPERATION

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: --

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.3147A OF 2023

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petitiori is filed seeking the following reliel

¶35

". . .. - .. to issue an appropiate Writ, Order Or Direction, more partianlarlg one in the nature of uit of Mandamus declaring the rejection ord-er, passed by the Respondent No.2 pursuant to the online Dharani application made bg the Petitioner uide Application/ reference N o. 2 2 0O069 52 5 and furthe r declare the Proceedings of the 5rr' Respondent uide Rc.No.1325/ 2019/ NC, dated 29.12.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, uiolation of Principles of Natural justice and contrary to the prouisions of Act 7 of 1964, Act 9 of 2O2O and set asid.e the same and consequentlg direct the Respondents herein more particularlg the Respondent No.2 to delete/ remoue the Sy.No.37/A2 to an extent of Ac.l2.O2 Gts., Sy.No.35lAA to an ertent of 7.15 Gts., Sg.No.36 to an extent of Ac.1O.15 Gts-, total admeasuing to an extent of Ac.3O.O2 gts. situated. at Allipur Village, Chiutakodur Mandal, Siddipet Distict from the prohibited Propertg List in the interest of justice and- pass such other relteJ...."

¶36

The petitioner claims to be the absolute oivner and

¶37

possessor of the agriculture lands admeasuring Ac. 12.O2 gts in Sy.No.37lA2,4c.7.15 gts. in Sy.No.35/AA, Ac.10.15 gts ln S-r,. No.36, total admeasuring Ac.3O.O2 gts., situated at Allipur Villagc, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bcaring document No.1416 of 2019, dated 08.04.2O19. It is the case of the petitioner that after conducting detailed enquiry, respondent No.4 has issued mutation proceedings in his lavour in respect of the said lands uide Proceedings

¶38

¶39

No.MUT/ lOl04lOO9OT l2019, dated 30.O4.2019 and new pattadar pzrssbook uide No.T10040O22255 n,ith Khata No.60231 was also issued in his favour. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents^q,ithout examining the documents filed by l-rim have shou,n the land as prohibited property ancl on l<nowing about the entries made in the Dharani portal as well as in tl.re prohibited property list, he has made an application in Dharani portal uide Application/Reference No.22O0O69525, dated 14.O7.2022 for removal of his lands from tl-re prohibited properties list and the sarne was rejected AS 'grievance rejected' ^,ithout asslgnlng anv reasons

¶40

karned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioncr is thc absolute owner and pattedar of the said agriculture lands and the respondents without considering the rclcr ant rcvenue records have rejected the application filcd b_v the petitioner for deietion of his property from the prol-ribited propcrtv list from the Dharani portal as u,ell as in tlre lrst containcd under the provisions of S<--ction 22 ol thc llcgistration Act, 19OB-.

¶41

¶42

I :

¶43

A perusal of the impugned order ',l,ould shou, that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the application. Since the order is bereft of reasons and the same is passed in gross violation of principles of naturat justice, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to examine the application of the petitioner filed for deletion of the entries made in the Dharani portal as well as from the prohibited properties list and pass orders strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act (Act 9 ol 2O2Ol within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶44

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶46

shall stand closed

¶47

SD/.A.V.S .PBASAD ASSISTANT RE Gr$TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION d#r,"=*

¶48

To,

¶49

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

¶50

2 The District Collector and Magistrate, Siddrpet, Siddipet District.

¶51

The Revenue Divisional^{officer, Siddipet Revenue Division,siddipet,Siddipet} District.

¶52

The Tahsildar and Joint^{sub-Registrar, chinnakodurMandal, Siddipet District.}

¶53

The District Cooperative^{Officer, Siddipet, SiddipetDistrict.}

¶54

One CC to SRI^{B.ARJUN RAO, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶55

Two CCs to GP FOR^{REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶56

B. Two CCs to GP^{FOR COOPERATION, High Court for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

Two CD CoPies

BSR GJPNT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1411112023

ORDER

1 HE SrAT' 6
(
q
z
o 2 2 N0\l 2021

(ro
OE .S PATCTI .-.,

¶63

WP.No.31478 of 2023

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS

Dundigalla Bal Rajesham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dundigalla Bal Rajesham 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

Kasani Narsimhulu Vs P. Rama Krishna Rao

Kasani Narsimhulu Vs P. Rama Krishna Rao

Dorashetti Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

E Naresh Goud Vs The State of Telangana

V Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Victory Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs District Collector