Disposed

Boshatti Laxmi Narayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Dec 2023WP/32344/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation of land in revenue records based on a partition deed and a subsequent application. The revenue authorities failed to act promptly. Directions sought for mutation were summarily dismissed in favor of a direction to re-process the application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the online application and pass appropriate orders, including issuing notices, within forty-five days.

Boshatti Laxmi Narayana Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³¹

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 32344 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Boshatti Laxmi Narayana, Sio. Late Boshiti Dasharatha, Aged 58 years, Occ Govt. Employee, R/o. 16-1-60/1, Poosala Basthi, Near Venakteswar Temple Arch, Saidabd, Hyderabad- 500 029

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Kongara Kalan.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not mutating the petitioners name in the Revenue records as pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 445lAAl2, admeasuring Ac. 3-07 Gts., situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on his online application bearing No. 23O0327449, dated 27-04-2023 fihd basing on registered Partition Deed bearing Doct. No. 12157 ot 2007, daled 12-10-2007, registered in the office of SRO, Maheshwaram, as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstilutional and against the principles of natural^justice, and consequently direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to mutate the name of petitioner in the Revenue records against his application No. 2300327449, dated 27-04-2023 in

¶17

respect of the land in Sy. No, 445lAAl2, admeasuring Ac. 3-07 Gts., situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

lA NO: 'f OF 2023

¶19

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 Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the application No.2300327449, daled 27 -04-2023 made for mutation of petitioners name in the Revenue records, in respect of the land in sy. No. 44stAAt2, admeasuring Ac. 3-07 Gts., situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt THIMMARAJU RAMCHANORA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I t tl r(

¶24

SI )l tl n(

¶25

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEB. VI]AYSEN REDDY} w N o 3 f o

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The writ Petition^{isfiled aggrieved by the action of the} in not^{mutating of the name of the} respondents^{No'2 and3} petitioner in^{the revenue recordsin respect of landadmeasuring} Mankhal^{V lage, Maheswaram} Ac.3.O7^{guntas,SY.No'4a5/AA/2'} his online^{aPPlicationbearing} Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.on} No.23OO327449^dated27 '04'2023'

¶28

It is the^{case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner} and^{possessorof the subject land by virtue of registered Partition} Deed bearing^{document No'12157 of 2OO7dated 12'10'2007'} It is stated^{that the father of the petitloner was the absolute owner} and^{possessor of the subject land vide allotment order ifl} Proceedings^{No.D2l5O35t77dated 10 04'1978under the Rule10} and Section^{14 of the A'P' Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural} Holdings)^{Act, 7973' That after the death ofhis father'} the^{petitioner, his motherand sisters stlcceededto the subject} execution^{ofpartition deed dated} property.^{Thereafter,uPon} adrneasuring^{Ac.3.O7 guntasin} L2.LO.2OO7,^theland Sy.No.445lAA/2,^{which is the subject property'was allottedto the} share^{of the} Petitioner'

)

It is stated that^{after the death oF the father of the petitioner'} the land was^{mutated in the name of his motherand e-pattadar} passbook was issued in^{her favour. Later, the subject property fell to} the share of^{the petitionervide registered partition signed by his} mother and sisters.

¶33

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitioner andlearned} Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Revenue'}

¶34

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner submittedthat the} petitioner applied for slot^{booking on 27} 'O4'2O23^{and submitted} online application^{No.2300327449on 27} 'O4'2O23^{along with} pattadar passbook of his^{mother, legal heir certificate and joint} agreement of the^{legal heirs. The grievance of the petitioner is that} the respondent^{No.3 did not act upon the application of the} petitioner and thereafter,^{he was constrainedtosubmit} representation dated^{10.10.2023' However,the matter has been} delayed and the^{respondent No.3 did not initiate any process for} issuing mutation Proceedings.

¶35

Learned Assistant^{Government PleaderforRevenue} submitted that^{appropriateaction would be taken on the online} application^{No.23OO327449dated27} 'O4^{'2023 submittedbv the} petitioner.

¶36

)

¶37

In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion^{on the} merits of the case, the writ^petitionis disposed^{of with a direction} to the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the online^application No.23OO327449 on 27.04.2023 submitted by the^{petitionerfor} mutation of his in the revenue records in^respect of^land admeasuring Ac.3.07 guntas, Sy.No.445lAA/2,^{MankhalVillage,} Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by^{issuing noticeto all} interested/concerned persons and pass appropriate^orders, in accordance with law, within a^period of forty five⁽⁴⁵⁾ days^from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

The miscellaneous petitions^pending, if any, shall^stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHA BA ASSISTANT G RAR

¶40

//TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

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

¶43

The District Collector, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict, Kongara Kalan.}

¶44

The Tahsildar, Maheshwaram^{Mandal, RangaReddy District.}

¶45

One CC to SRI THIMMARAJU RAMCHANDRA^{RAO, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High^{Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶47

Two CD Copies

BSR BS I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2211212023

ORDER

1 6E STATE
2/-o
ofo 11 l[N ?t?\ fa ,lI
t
c
t
OE SP A1c,

¶54

WP.No.32344 of 2023

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

oFd'

¶58

Boshatti Laxmi Narayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boshatti Laxmi Narayana 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dappu Radhika Vs The State of Telangana

Narla Ramchander Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Manuka Mallamma Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Yadla Satish Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Kunja Kannappa and 26 others Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

Smt Kadakanchi Chinna Somakka Vs The State of Telangana