Allowed

Arepally Durgamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2023WP/33341/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Tahsildar order rejecting a mutation application. The court found the order arbitrary, lacking reasons, and violative of natural justice, and remitted the matter for a fresh inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned memo on mutation rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh inquiry with an opportunity of hearing.

Arepally Durgamma 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

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33341 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Arepally Durgamma, W/o. Late Mallaiah, Aged about 56^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Teegalaguttapally Village and Mandal, Karimnagar Rural, Karimnagar District'

¶9

...pETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar Revenue Division,^Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶15

Arepally Mallaiah, S/o. Mondaiah Aged about 58^years Occ. Agriculture^Fi/o. H. No. 3-5112, R:/o. Teegalaguttapally Village and Mandal, Karimnagar^Rural, Karininagar District 505001^.

¶16

Arepally Anjaiah, S/o. Mondaiah Aged about 52^years Occ. Agriculture^{Rl/o. H.} No. 3-5'l/2, Ri/o. Teegalaguttapally Village and Mandal, Karimnagar Rural, Karimnagar District 505001^.

¶17

Arepally Shankaraiah, S/o. Mondaiah Aged about 55^years Occ.^Agriculture Fi/o. H. No. 3-5112,.FJo. Teegalaguttapally Village and Mandal,^Karimnagar Rural, Karimnagar District 505001.

¶18

...RES,ONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directbn more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the^memo No.^{8,187112022dated} 17.06.2022 of the 4th respondent in denying the mutation and^issuing E^Pattadar Pass Book in favour of the petitioner the land in Sy No. 165 / Lu, to an extent of Ac. O.12 guntas situated at Teegalaguttapally Village, Karimnagar^RuralMandal, Karimnagar District is illegal, arbitrary, contrary^{to the provisionsof Telangana} State Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act^{1971 ( Act 9 of 2020} )violation of the principles of natural^{justice,fundamentalrights guaranteedunder the}

¶20

constitution of lndia and as well as without jurisdiction set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner in the above said land and extent.

¶21

IANO:1OF2 022

¶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 to mutate and issue E pattadar pass Book in favour of the petitioner the land in Sy No. 165 / Lu, to an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas situated at Teegalaguttapally Village, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar District, by suspending the Memo No. 8.187112022 dated 17.06.2022 of the 4th respondent, forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRt BALLA RAVTNDRANATH SAVITHR| DEVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 TO 7: SRt N.HARI PRASAD

¶24

The Court made the following: OROER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION 0.33341 ot 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The writ petition is filed challenging the memo No.B/A7L/2O22 dated 17.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the application of the petitioner for mutation and issuance for e-pattadar passbook in respect of the land in an extent of A.0.12 guntas, Sy.No.165/Lu, Teegalag uttapa lly Village, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar District, was rejected.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that her father-in-law, Yellaiah, was the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.165 of Teega lag utta pa lly Village, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar District. After his death, the land was divided into three parts and one share in an extent of Ac.0.12 guntas in sy.No.165/Lu was allotted the husband of the petitioner, Mallaiah and the same was mutated in his name vide mutation proceedings No.B/937/2O78 dated 24.08.2018. The said Mallaiah died on 12.O1.2019. During the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner, he was in possession of the subject land and after his death, the^petitioner had been in peaceful possession of the subject land. The petitioner submitted application before the respondent No.2 in^'Praja Vani' on 73.06.2022 for issuance of mutation^proceedings and^pattadar passbook in her name in respect of the subject land.

¶30

,.)

¶31

3.ItissubmittedthattherespondentNo.4withoutconducting enquiry^{passed the impugned memodated L7 '06 '2022rejecting} the application^{of the petitioner statingthat there is a civil dispute} between the^{petitioner and the unofficial respondents'}

¶32

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submitted that there is no} dispute^{pending betweenthe parties'The mutationproceedings} No.B/g37 /2OLB^{dated 24'08.2018were issued by the respondent} No.4 in favour^{of the husband of the petitioner' The unofficial} respondents^{have falsely claimed to be the grandchildrenand legal} heirsofthedeceasedYellaiah.Theimpugnedmemoispassedin violation of^{principlesof natural justiceas petitioner was not given} opportunity^{of hearing before the impugned memowas issued} rejecting the^{application of the petitioner'}

¶33

Learned counsel^{for the respondents No'5 to 7 submittedthat} there is a dispute^{regarding title between the petitioner and the} unofficial^{respondents.The respondentNo'4' having found that} there is a title^{dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial} respondents,^{directedthe parties to approachthe civil Court and} rejected the succession/m^{utation application of the petitioner'}

¶34

6 Heard learned^{counsel for the petitioner,learned counsel for} 7 and learned^{Assistant Government} the respondents^No.5to Pleader for Revenue'

I I

-27/

I have^{perusedthe impugnedmemo' The respondent No'4'} having recorded the^{claim of the petitioner and the unofficial} respondents, abruptly^{concludedthat there is a civil dispute} pending between the^{parties' Learned counsel for the respondents} No.5 to 7 tried to clarify^{that the observation that thereis civil} dispute in the impugned^{memo is read out of context'The Tahsildar} only meant to^{say that thereis title dispute and it is nobody'scase} that there is a civil^{dispute pending betweenthe parties; that due} to rival claims of^{the parties, they were relegated to the civil Court'}

¶39

Be that as it^{may, exceptfor recording the contentions of} both the^{parties,the Tahsildardid not assign any reasons'} According to the^{learned counselfor the petitioner, the mutation} proceedings issued in^{favour of the husbandof the petitioner} (Mallaiah) daled 24.08.2018^{were not taken into consideration'} It is not in dispute^{that originally Yellaiah was recorded as pattadar} of the subject^{land and without giving anyfinding as to whether the} petitioner is related to^{YellaiahaM without consideringthe death} certificat€ of^{the husband of the petitioner, the impugnedmemo} came to be^{issued. As such, the impugnedorder is passedin} violation of^{principlesof naturaljusticeand the same is liable to be} set aside.

¶40

¶41

¶42

In the result, the writ^{petitlon is alicrved' The impugned} memo dated 77.06.2022^is set^{aside. The matter is remitted back} to the respondents No.2^{and 4 to conductde novo enquiry on the} application of the^{petitionerbefore'Praja Vani'on13.06.2022and} pass appropriate orders in accordance^{with larv withina period of} one month from the^{date of receiptof a t:opy of this order,} by issuing opportunity of^{hearing to the petitioner and the} respondent Nos.s to 7 and^{other interested persons.However,} the respondents^{No.2 and 4 shall insist upon the petitionerto} submit Dharani application^{through proper module if the same is} compulsory for entertaining^{succession/mutationproceedings.}

¶43

The miscellaneous^{petitions pending,ifany, shall stand}

¶44

closed. There shall be^{no orderas to costs.}

¶45

SO/- K. AMMAJI ASS]STANT RE\STRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcrtoN oFrrc=*

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

¶51

2 The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶52

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar Revenue Division, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶53

4 The Tahsildar, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 5 One CC to SRI BALLA RAVINDRANATH SAVITHRI DEVI, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

¶54

Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶55

7 One CC to SRI N.HARI PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 8 Two CD Copies

¶56

PSK. GJP g

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011212023

ORDER

WP.No.33341 ot 2022

ft\ e STAI€
t
vzo
i 25JAtl2o2[ .i,

Dss earc

¶62

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶63

&??' ftF

Arepally Durgamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arepally Durgamma 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

Tatineni Narayana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

Datla Lakshmi Konda Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

S.Nusayr Azam Vs The State of Telangana

Kommu Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Jangam Srinivas Goud Vs The State Telangana

Musku Ganesh Vs The State of Telangana