Dismissed

Sri.Duddukuri Laxmi Narayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Dec 2023WP/34045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a show cause notice under Dharani Application alleging arbitrary action violating natural justice. Court observed that questions regarding title require adjudication before the land authority and are premature for writ court intervention.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications stood closed.

Sri.Duddukuri Laxmi Narayana Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE^{EIGHTEENTHDAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETI TION^{NO:340450F 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri.DuddukuriLaxmiNarayana,s/oSeetharamaiah.Aoedabout.6Tyears'occ. Aoricultur", nlit]r#i:6ala,^{-a-"s"pahaduVillageand Mandal'} ghiOraOii-xotnagudem District - 507114'

¶9

...'ETIT'ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

ii; Dl;irti^{C6ilector., BhadradriKothasude-m.Dist'} 5. i'fi" n"*"re^{Divisionat Otticer, Bhadradri Kothaorrdem Dist'} 4. The Tahsildrr,^{errgr;p;hii,'ivr''"irirl anioraarI xoftragudemDst"} 5. a;i.B;.ai;*roi^{sii Lu-*ri,w/o srinivasRaoAoed about ' 53' occ'} Housewife, nlo. u-rui?i-z^{i isl ttuihig't"m vitlage' Burgampahad Village'} Bhadradri Kothagudem^District. ...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

...RES'ONDENTS

¶14

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue a^{writ or more in the natureof a writ of Mandamusor any other} appropriate^{writ order declaringthe actionof RespondentNo 4 in giving notice to} the^{petitioner in proceedingsnumber RC No'434/2023 Daled 'OGl12l2O23in} respect of^{petitioners agricultureland in Survey Nos' 440/1/58' 44011148and} 44ol1l5g situated^{at BurgampahadVillageand Mandal' Bhadradri Kothagudem} Districtonthepetitionofrespondentno.siSillegalarbitraryagainsttothe principles of natural^{justice and consequently directthe Respondent No'2to 4} not to^{pass any ordersin respect of title of the petitioners propertyin Survey} Nos. 440/1158,^{44}t1t48 and 44011159 situated at Burgampahad Village and} Mandal, Bhadradri^{KothagudemDistrictadm Ac'04- 47 gts'}

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under section 1s1 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 to 4 not to issue any pass-book on the petitioner land in Survey Nos. 440/'1l58,44011t48 and 44Ol1ti9 situated at Burgampahad Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. adm.Ac.04- 47 gts to respondent Nos.6 or to any third parties by considering the petitioners representation dL.0611212023 to respondent nos.4.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: -

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

, I

HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.34045 OF 2023

¶24

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶25

This writ petition is filed challenging the notice bearing RC.No. 8,143412023 dated 06.12.2023 issued against the^petitioner by respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Burgampahadu Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and^perused the material available on record.

¶27

According to the learned counsel for^{petitioner, pursuant} to the impugned notice dated 06.12.2023, reply has been submitted by^the petitioner on 11.12.2023. Learned counsel also contended that respondent No.4 ought not to have entertained Dharani Application^of respondent No.5. Respondent No.4 cannot decide title disputes and^it is for the civil court to adjudicate the dispute of title between the petitioner and respondent No.5.

¶28

lt is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4^lacks inherent^jurisdiction to entertain Dharani Application submitted^by respondent No.5. lt is settled^principle of law that a show^causenotice cannot be challenged unless the same is shown to^{have been} issued by the authority who lacks inherent^{jurisdiction.lt is prematureto say}

¶29

¶30

¶31

that respondent No.4 does not^{have jurisdictionto entertainDharani} Application of respondent No.5. The other^{points raised} by^learned counsel for the petitioner are touching upon the merits of the case. The point with regard to title needs to be urged before the authority. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ^petition.

¶32

With the above observations, the writ^petition is disposed of. lf

¶33

the petitioner has any grievance at later^point of time, he is^{at liberty to} approach this Court. No order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,^pending

¶35

in the writ petition stand closgd.

¶36

SD/- T.^JAYA SREE ASSISTANT^REGIS

/TTRUE^COPY//

SECTION FFICER

to ,. ,n. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat' Hyderabad'^State

¶41

lllialtlll?g-,".f,"!1ffi i#;,fri{tT'r#l?iit:&8,'ol+,,",

¶42

i*:tli['sf'+1+,1'imv$*uv5:L,ttv].lzi'.t?i'"F+"*nn'n"''

Hvderabad. [OUTI

Z. two CD^CoPies

PSK. GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 811212023

ORDER

WP.No.34045 of 2023

1 E s t4 r e'
( o
4.
a
c
(.) 0 3 JAli 202[ :i

DEspa"rCP. cS

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶52

w
I

Sri.Duddukuri Laxmi Narayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Duddukuri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitta Satyanarayana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Mandumula Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Yerram Ramesh Vs NagillaRupus

Smt.B.Kalyani Vs The State of Telangana

Narsolla Balamani Vs the State of Telangana

Rathod Lakshman Vs The State of Telangana