Dismissed

Boyapally Sathaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Dec 2023WP/32301/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging inordinate delay in processing a Dharani mutation application regarding 1 A.00 Guntas of land. The court disposed of the petition without examining merits, directing respondents to consider the application and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the Dharani application, issue notices to concerned/interested persons, and pass orders in accordance with law within two months.

Boyapally Sathaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32301 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Boyapally Sathaiah, S/o: Narayana..@ Narayya, aged .68.years, Oc:. Rtd. Govt. Tebcher, Fl/o Bangarigadda Village, chandur^{[Vlandal,Nalgonda District,} Telangana State-508255

¶9

Boyapally Jayanand, S/o: Narayana @^Narayya,aged .57..yeqrq, Occ. Go'vernment Teacher, Rl/o Bangarigadda^{Village, chandurlvlandal,} Nalgonda District, Telangana State-508255.

¶10

Boyapally Chandramohan, S/o: Narayana @^{Narayya,aged.55..years,} OcL. Government Teacher, Rl/o Bangarigadda^{Village, chandur[/andal,} Nalgonda District, Telangana State-508255.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

2 The District Collector, Nalgonda District,^{TelanganaState}

¶15

a The Tahsildar, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda^{District,TelanganaState}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat 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 respondentsmore} particularly the Respondent No.3 in not considering^{ourrepresentationdated} 27.12.2021 and online application No.Ltr/2100042163^{pertaining to the mutation of} land remained on the name of^{Petitioners' deceasedfather namelyBoyapally} Narayana admeasuring Ac. 1-00^{gts in Sy No. 396/l/1 situatedat Bangarigadda} Revenue Village, Chandur [\ilandal^{and NalgondaDistrict on the names of the} petitioners herein being legal heirs of their deceased^{father as illegal,arbitrary,}

¶18

unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural^justice and contravention of Article Nos.14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution and contrary to the^provisions of the Telangana Rights in land and pattadar pass books Act,2020 and rules made there under and consequently direct the Respondents more^particularly the Respondent No.3 to consider the Petitioners' representation dated 27.12.2021 and online application No.LM2100042163 pertaining to the mutation of land remained on the name of the Petitioners' deceased father namely Boyapally Narayana admeasuring Ac. 1-00 gts in Sy No. 396/l/1 situated at Bangarigadda Revenue Village, Chandur Mandal and.Nalgonda District on the names of the^petitioners.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 1 51 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 more pa(icularly the Respondent No.3 to consider the Petitioners' representation dated 27.12.2021 and online application No.LM2100042163 pertaining to the mutation of land remained on the name of the Petitioners' deceased father namely Boyapally Narayana admeasuring Ac. 1-00 gts in Sy No. 396/l/1 situated at Bangarigadda Revenue Village, Chandur Mandal and Nalgonda District on the names of the petitioners.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G SATYANARAYANA YADAV

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

I i I

¶25

THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSEN REDDY} WRIT PETITION No.32301 OF 2023

¶26

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the^petitioner seeking^{to declare} the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not^{consideringthe} Dharani application bearing No.LM2100042163^{submitted by the} petitioners for mutating their names in the^{revenuerecords} (Dharani poftat) in respect of their land admeasuring^{Ac. 1-00} guntas in Survey No.396/I/1 situated at Bangarigadda^Revenue Viltage, Chandur Mandal, Naglonda^{District, as being illegal and} arbitrary.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioner, learned Assistant} Govemment Pleader for Revenue^{appearingfor respondents, and} perused the material on record.

¶29

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner has submittedthat the} ancestors of the^{petitionerswere absoluteowners of the land in} Survey No.396 llll along^{r.vith other lands situated at Bangarigadda} Revenue Village.^{After partition arligog themselves,land}

¶30

¶31

admeasuring Acs.7-35 guntas in Survey No.396/l/l fell to the share of the father of the petitioners.^{'l.hercafier,} the petitioner.s' father sold land admeasuririg Acs.6-35 guntas in the aforesaid Survey number and he was remained with Ac. l-00 guntas in the aforesaid Survey ntrmber. After the death of their father, the petitioners succeeded to the subject land. They made several representations to revenue authorities for mutating the subject land on their names. That on being advised, petitioners submitted online application bearing No.LM2 100042163 for mutating their names in the revenue records. Flowever, there is inordinate delav on the parl of respondent authorities in pr.ocessing the oniine application of the petitioners. Hence, they are constrained to approach this Court.

¶32

Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents has submitted that appropriate action will be taken on the Dharani application of the petitioners, in accordance with law.

¶33

¶34

Recording the albresaid subrnission ol^{the leamed Assistant}

¶35

Govemment Pleader for Revenue,^{without going into meritsof the} case, the writ petition is disposed of directing^{respondent Nos.2} and 3 to consider the online application^bearing No.LM2100042163 submitted by the^{petitioners for mutating their} names in the revenue records^{(Dharani portat)in respect of their} land admeasuring Ac.l-00 guntas in Survey^{No.396/l/l situated at} Bangarigadda Revenue Village, Chandur^{Mandal,Naglonda} District, by issuing notice to alI concerned/interested^persons,and pass orders, in accordance with law,^{within a period of two (2)} rnonths lrom the date of receipt of^{a copy of this order.No order} as to costs.

¶36

Asa sequcl thcreto, miscellaneous^{applications,}

¶37

if any, pending in the writ^petition stand^closed.

¶38

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUS BA ASSISTANT REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

The District Collector, Nalgonda District,Telangana State 2. The Tahsildar, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State 3. One CC to Sri G. Satyanarayana Yadav, Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the Stat,e of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI 5. Two CD Copies TJ GJP -Pr^'t q

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11212023

ORDER

WP.No.32301 of 2023

,ar? 91AT€ o A
9
oi
-:
)oq 3s tEt $11
o
i
o
I o e sPlS

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶50

Y\tt'*'

Boyapally Sathaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boyapally Sathaiah 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

M. Mohan Rao, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Govt of Ap, Hyd and 5 Ot

Lavudya Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

K. Sudarshan Rao and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Abul Faiz Mohammed Asim Mehdi Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vaseemunnisa Begum, Vs The State of Telangana