Disposed

Narsolla Balamani v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Dec 2023WP/34084/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Single Judge of Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging inaction by revenue authorities in processing Dharani applications to delete specific lands from the prohibited properties list. The court directed the respondents to process the applications and issue notices within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the District Collector and Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's Dharani applications, issue notices to concerned persons, and pass orders within two months.

Narsolla Balamani Vs the State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ J

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 34084 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Narsolla Bqlqmani, Wo. Late Pentaiah, Aged about 50 year's, Occ. pvt. Employee, . R/o. . H. No.2- 1 4(otd No.2-22), H\ihabad VilaG,'S[ab;d M;nd;i: Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

l!9 ftate.OJ^{Telangaqq, Representedby principat SecretaryRevenue} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Collector, Rang^a Reddy District, At Kongara Kalan Village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶13

3 The Tahsildar, Shabad Mandat, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the inaction of the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 in processing the dharani apptication Nos.2300024550 and 23ooo24ss1, both dated 08.08.2023 and to delete the land in sy.Nos.171l€9 (Ac.2-20 Gts.,) and 171lel2 (Ac-2-19 Gts.,), situated at Hythabad Viilage, shabad Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, frbm the prohibited list of properties as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14, 21 , and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take steps to process dharani application Nos. Nos.2300024550 and 23ooo24ss1, both dated 08.08.2023 and to delete the tand in Sy.Nos.171le (Ac.2-20 Gts.,) and 1Z1t(gt2 (4c.2-19 Gts.,), situated at Hythabad Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the prohibited list of properties.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

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 & 3 to take steps to process dharani application Nos. Nos.2300024550 and2300024551, both dated 08.08.2023 and to delete the land in Sy.Nos.171les (4c.2-20 Gts.,) and 171lel2 (Ac.2-19 Gts.,), situated at Hythabad Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the prohibited list of properties pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.BAL REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: OROER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY} WRIT PETITION^{No.34084 ()F 2023}

¶22

ORDER:^(ORAL)

¶23

This writ^{petitionis filed by the petitioner seekingto declare} action of respondent^{Nos.2 and 3 in not consideringthe} Dharani applications^{bearing Nos.2300024550and 2300024551} dated 08.08.2023^{submitted by the petitioner for deletionof her} lands admeasuring^{Acs.2-20 guntas and Acs.2-19guntasin Survey} Nos.lTlle9 ard lTllel2^{respectivelysituated at Hythabad Village,} Shabad Mandal,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict, from ProhibitoryProperties} List, as being^{illegaland arbitrary.}

¶24

Heard leamed Counsel^{for the petitioner, leamed Assistant} Government Pleader^{for Revenue appearingfor respondents,and} perused the material on record.

¶25

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerhas submitted that} originally the^{land admeasuring Acs.5-3 I guntas in Survey No'17 1} situated at^{Hyhabad Village is a GovemmentLand (I{hariz} Khata). Mr. Madigi^{Jangaiah S/o Pochaiah, father of the} petitioner, purchased^{the landadmeasuringAcs'4-39guntasout of}

¶26

¶27

Acs.5-3 I guntas in Survey No.l7l from the Govemment^{for an} amount of Rs.l20l. Accordingly, the Govemment^{has issued} ln Occupancy Rights Certificate vide^proceedings A.F.No.2l9l1958 dated 10.03.1958 in respect of his land under^the provisions of Laoni Rules, 1950. Name of the father of the petitioner is recorded in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor in the Pahanies from the years 1958-59. After the death ofher father, the^petitioner and her mother succeeded^{to the subject} land and revenue authorities issued succession proceedings in File No.A/l 352l I 998 dated 27 .06.1998.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

¶29

above land was sub-divided into two parts i.e., Survey Nos.17lle, (Acs.2-20 guntas) and lTLleJl2 (Acs.2-19 guntas). The land in

¶30

Survey No.171le9 is mutated in the name of mother of the petitioner and land in Survey No.l71l€9/2 was recorded on the name of the petitioner. After the death of her mother, the land in Survey No. 171l€9 was mutated on the name of the petitioner vide proceedings in File No.G/RS/1512013 dated 04.05.2013. After the

¶31

¶32

t I

¶33

Land Record Updation Programme, petitioner was issued e-pattadar passbook only in respect of the land in Survey No. l7lle9i2, despite the fact that the she was issued succession proceedings in respect ofthe land in Survey No.l7lle9.

¶34

On her verification, the petitioner came to know that land in Survey No.17l was recorded in the Prohibitory^{Properties List.} That on being advised, petitioner has submitted^Dharani applications bearing Nos.2300024550 and^{2300024551 dated} 08.08.2023 for deletion of subject lands from the Prohibitory Properties List. However, there is inaction on the^part of respondent authorities in^processing the Dharani applications ofthe petitioners, as such, she is constrained to approach this Court.

¶35

Leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents has submitted that appropriate^action will be taken on the Dharani applications submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶36

Recording the aforesaid submission of the leamed^Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, without going into the merits of

¶37

¶38

¶39

case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2

¶40

and 3 to consider the Dharani applications bearing No.2300024550

¶41

and230002455 I dated 08.08.2023 submitted by the petitioner for

¶42

deletion^{of her lands admeasuring Acs.2-20 guntas and Acs.2-19} guntas in Survey Nos. l7lle9 and ITllelz respectively situated at

¶43

Hythabad Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from Prohibitory Properties List, by issuing notice to all

¶44

concerned/interested persons, and pass orders, in accordance with

¶45

law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a

¶46

copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,

¶48

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

¶49

SDI- T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ V SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

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

¶52

The District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District,At Kongara KalanVillage, Ranga} Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶53

The Tahsildar, Shabad^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,Telangana State'}

¶54

One CC to SRI B.BAL^{REDDY,Advocate} IOPUC]

¶55

Two CCs to GP FOR^{REVENUE, High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUTJ

¶56

Two CD Copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1811212023

ORDER

WP.No.34084 of 2023

1 E STAre
q
i) 2 i [E[ 2M1 ),
l\t
*
t 9s.sp,rlt:

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

Narsolla Balamani v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsolla Balamani 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

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

Rathod Lakshman Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.Duddukuri Laxmi Narayana Vs The State of Telangana