Allowed

Lolam Shyam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Dec 2023WP/33337/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking correction in land extent records under the Dharani portal. The court held that the Revenue Department's rejection of the application without assigning reasons violated natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Rejection order set aside; respondent authorities directed to reconsider the application within 45 days after recording reasons and affording hearing.

Lolam Shyam Vs The State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33337 0F²⁰²³

¶7

Between:

¶8

Lolam Shvam. S/o. Lolam Ganqadhar,^{Aged about 32 years, Occ.Agriculture,} Ro. H.No.'3-53, Vempalli^{Village,MupakalMandal' NizamabadDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

The District Collector,^{NizamabadDistrict.}

¶14

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{O/o.RDO, ArmoorDivision,ArmoorDistrict,} Nizamabad, T.S.

¶15

4 The Tahsildar, Mupakal Mandal,^{Nizamabad District.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ order, or direction^{more particutarlyone in the nature of} writ Mandamus declaring^{the action of the respondents2 and 4 in rejecting the} online application of^{the petitionermade videApplicationNo. 2300'157078, dated} 19.1O.2023 for Pass^{Book Data correction in respect of lands to an extent of Ac'} 2.loGtS.inSy.No.lgTl5t3situatedatVempalleVillage,MupkalMandal, Nizamabad District, inspite^{of there being specific directions from thisHonble} court vide orders in W.P.No.27296^{of 2018, dated 04.10.2023, and inspite of} petitioner addressing specific representations^{dated 21.1o.2023 and 26.1O.2023} as highly illegal and^{arbitraryandin violation of Article300-4 of the constitution} of lndia and consequently^{direct the respondents 2 and 4 to considerthe online} application of the^{petitionersmade vide Application No. 2300157078,dated}

¶18

-7

¶19

¶20

19 10'2023 by making necessary correction of the extents of the rands of the petitioner and to issue new pattedar pass[soks to that effect.

¶21

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶22

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 2 and 4 to consider the onrine apprication of the petitioner made vide Apprication No.2300157078, dated 19.10.2023 by making necessary correction of the extents of the lands of the petitioner to an extent of Ac. 2.10 Gts in sy'No. 197t5t3, situated at Vempaile virage, Mupkar Mandar, Nizamabad Diskict, and to issue new pattedar passbooks to that effect, pending disposar of the above Writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the^petitioner: SRI L.RAVINDER

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the fo[owing: ORDER

¶26

¶27

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.33337 of 2023

¶30

ORDER: (oRAL)

¶31

This writ petition rs filed seeking to declare action of respondent No.2 and 4 in rejecting petitioner's Dharani application No.2300157078, dated 19.10.2023 for passbook data correction in respect of the land to admeasuring of Ac.2-10 Gts in Sy.No.l9715/3 instead of Ac.1.0100 in Sy.No.l9715/3 situated at Vempalle Village Mupkal Mandal Nizamabad District, as illegal and arbitray.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue and perused the material available on record

¶33

It is claimed that the petitioner is absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the land admeasuring of Ac.2-10 Gts in Sy.No.l97l5/3 instead of Ac. 1.0100 in Sy.No.19715/3 situated at Vempalle Village Mupkal Mandal Nizamabad District having acquired the same from his father through registered gift settlement deed No.2437 of 2010 dated 02.06.2010. The name of the

a i i i

petltroner was mutated in the revenue records and he was issued old pattedar passbook vide Khatha No.650 in respect of the subject land. On introduction of the Dharani Portal, the peritioner was issued e-Pattedar Passbook No.Tl I150070429 vide Khatha No.650. However, the petitioner came to know that the extent in the e-Pattedar passbook is wrongly mentioned as Ac. I .0 I00 in instead of Ac.2-10 Gts in Sy.No.19715/3. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed W.P.No 27583 of 2018 and the same was disposed of by order dated 04.10.2023 directing the petitioner to submit Dharani application for rectification of entries in the e-pattedar passbook, and upon receipt of such application respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to consider the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt ofcopy of that order. That pursuant to the same petitioner has submitted Dharani application No.2300157078 dated 19.10.2023 for rectifying the extent of land in the pattedar passhook as Ac.2-10 Gts in Sy.No.197l5l3 instead of Ac.l-01 Gts in Sy.No.l97l5/3. It is submitted that respondent No.2 without assigning any reasons mechanically rejected the petitioner,s applications stating "Application for Passbook Data Correction

¶38

¶39

2300157078 is rejected by Collector. Collector Remarls - This land is Non-Agricalture land'

¶40

It is submitted that respondent No.3 has not verified the records/documents properly and no reasons whatsoever have been recorded in the impugned order. Thus, the impugned rejection order is passed in violation of principles of natural^justice.

¶41

It is a settled law that a Quasi-Judicial authority is required to record reasons when an order is passed determining rights ofthe parties and the same is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The impugned rejection order does not disclose any reasons. It appears, petitioner was not afforded opportunity to present and explain his case. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural^justice and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

¶42

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the rejection order of respondent No.2. Consequently, respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to reconsider petitioner's Dharani application No

¶43

¶44

2300157078 for passbook data correction in respect of his land admeasuring Ac.2-10 Gts in Sy.No. l97l5l3 situared at Vempalle Village Mupkat Mandal Nizamabad District, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested/concerned persons and pass orders by assigning reasons, in accordance with law, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs

¶45

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,

¶46

ilany, pending in the writ petition stand closed

¶47

SD/.V.KAVITHA AssrsrANr +EQTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

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

¶50

The District Collector, Nizamabad District.

¶51

The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.RDO, Armoor Division, Armoor District, Nizamabad, T.S.

¶52

The Tahsildar, Mupakal Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶53

One CC to SRI L.RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUCI

¶54

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶55

Two CD Copies BSR GJP *x-

HIGH COURT

DATED: OBl12l2O23

ORDER

WP.No.33337 of 2023

o
cS
t-l/
'., a
,<a.,
lll
o
*
c H

¶61

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

Lolam Shyam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lolam Shyam 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

Smt. Erra Mutyamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Tadeem Balamma Vs The State of Telangana

Rafath Aziz Vs The State of Telangana

B. Amarender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector

Mirza Wajid Ali Baig Vs The State of Telangana

Shakir Jahan Begum Vs The State of Telangana