Allowed

Pittala Sai v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2023WP/34271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed challenging the District Collector's rejection of a mutation application without reasons. The Court quashed the impugned order as arbitrary and liable to be set aside for violating principles of natural justice and directed the respondents to reconsider the application with proper notice, hearing, and recording of reasons within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned rejection order is set aside. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 directed to reconsider the Dharani application by issuing notice, granting hearing opportunity, and recording reasons within two mont

Pittala Sai Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ I

¶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: 34271 oF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pittala Sai, S/o Komuraiah, Ag_ed about 40 years, Occ ; Eemployee, Rt/o Mandulapally Village, KarimnagarRural Mandal, Kaiimnagar District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

District Collector, Karimnagar District.

¶13

The Tahasildar, Karimnagar rural, Karimnagar District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in rejecting the dharani application vide No 2200099524 dated 29-1 1-2022 tor issuance of mutation for the land in survey No.76 extent ac 0.05 gts situated at Muqdampur village, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar District with a single line order without assigning any reasons and without issuing any notice as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice consequently to set aside the same.

¶16

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition Under Section 1 51 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 No.2 to re-consider the Dharani application vide

¶18

22ooo9o524 dated 29-1 1-2022 fot mutation and issuance of pass books for the land in survey No.76 extent ac 0.05 gts situated at Muqdampur vilage, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the foltowing ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.34271OF 2023

¶26

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the Dharani application bearing No.2200090524 dated 29.11.2022 submitted by the petitioner for mutating his name in revenue records and for issuance of e-pattadar passbook in respect of his land admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas ln Survey No.76 situated at Muqdampur Village, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar District, as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that he has submitted Dharani application bearing No.2200090524 dated 29.11.2022 for incorporating his name in the revenue records and for issuing e-pattadar passbook in respect of his land admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in Survey No.76 situated at Muqdampur Village, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar District. Petitioner was under the impression that respondents may issue pattadar passbook, but there was no response from respondent Nos.2 and 3,

¶29

¶30

¶31

for more than twelve (12) months from date of application. When the petitioner approached office of respondent No.2 onZ9.ll.2023 and sought information about the status of the application, he was informed that his application was rejected. petitioner has approached Mee-Seva and on verification of the status it was shown that his application was rejected by the District Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned rejection order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without recording any reasons.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader appearing for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

I have perused the rejection order passed by respondent No.2 - District Collector, Karimnagar. Rejection order reads as "not recommended rejected." There are no reasons recorded and thus impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is settled principle of law that a euasi-Judicial authority is required to record reasons whenever, rights of the parties are

¶34

¶35

I I

¶36

determined. Hence, the impugned^{order is liable to be set aside,} for the sole reason that the same is^{passed in violationof principles} of natural^justice.

¶37

In view of the above, without entering^{into the merits of the} case, the writ petition is allowed^{setting asidethe impugned} rejection order of respondent No.2. Consequently,^respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to re-consider the^{Dharani application} bearing No.2200090524 dated 29.11.2022^{submitted by the} petitioner for mutating his name in the revenue records^{and for} issuance of e-pattadar passbook in respect of his land admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in Survey No.76 situated at Muqdampur^Village, Karimnagar Rural Mandal, Karimnagar District, by^{issuing notice} to all concemed./interested^persons, by^{giving opportunityof} hearing to all parties, and^pass orders,^{by recording reasons,in} accordance with law, within a^{period of two (2) months fromthe} date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order

<br>

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. No order as to

¶42

costs.

¶43

SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH AN9ARI ASSISTANT REGIS R

¶44

//TRUE COPYII

¶45

SECTION FFICER

¶46

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

¶47

2 The District Collector, Karimnagar District.

¶48

3 The Tahasildar, Karimnagar rural, Karimnagar District.

¶49

4 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6 One CC to Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

b. Two CD Copies

SA GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011212023

ORDER

WP.No.34271 of 2023

,'l
E STAT €'
(
)4., P
02 Jhi'l ?i124 C) I
-:

* ,'fi a
Dg5 c7:,-f C

¶57

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS.

Pittala Sai v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pittala Sai v. 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

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