Disposed

Smt.P.Shoba v. State of Telangana, Revenue Department, rep.by Its

Telangana HC28 Nov 2023WP/35827/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to regularize 4.00 gts of government land. Court directed the relevant official to consider the petitioner's 2010 representation within two months and disposed of the petition without merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 09.07.2010 and pass orders within two months.

Smt.P.Shoba Vs State of Telangana, Revenue… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 35827 OF 2014

¶8

Betweqn

¶9

Smt.P.Shoba, Wo.P.Gopal Reddy aged about 40 years, Occ Agriculture Rl/o.Potharam Village,Samirpet tvlandal Ranga Reddy District. ,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Revenue Department, rep.by lts, Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Ranga Reddy. Hyderabad.

¶13

The Special Deputy Collector & R.D.O., Ranga Reddy District - Malkajigiri Division, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Ranga *"1_1{3'i5l,"Ji"r"

¶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 a Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner represenlation dated 09-07-20'10 to SGDC and RDO Ranga Reddy East Division is highly arbitrary illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularisation of Government Land an extent of Ac.4.00 gts in Sy.No.7412 situated Potharam Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO:44841 OF 20141

¶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 respondents consider the petitioner representation dated 09-07-2010 to SGDC & RDO Ranga Reddy East Division forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. V. PRABHAKARA RAO

¶19

Counsel for Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENryAS RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.35827 of 2OL4

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This r.r'rit petition is filed seeking following relef:

¶26

'...to issue a Writ, order or direction in th€ nature of Maridamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner representation dated 09.07.2010 to SGDC anC RDO, Ranga Reddy, East Division is highll. arbitrar)', illegal and consequently direct th€ respondents to regularization of Government l.and an extent of Ac.4.00 gts. in Sy. No.74/2 srtuated Potharam Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. . . "

¶27

Heard Sri V.V Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue fbr respondent Nos. I to 3.

¶28

Learncd counsel for the petitioner submits rhat the petitioner has made a representation to respondc nt No.3 on 09 .O7 .2O 1 O requesting to regularize tbe^(iovr:rnment land to an extent of Acs.4.OO gts. in Survey No.74 /2 situated at Potharam village, Shamirpet Manda,l, Ranga Reddy District presently Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist rict and till date no action has been taken in that regard and the same is contran, to law.

¶29

¶30

v-t

¶31

Per contra, learned Assistalt Government Pleader [or respondents submits that respondent No.3 will consider the representation dated 09.O7.2OlO and pass appropriate orders and requested this Court to grant reasonable time.

¶32

In view of the said submissions, without going into the merits of the case, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 09.O7 .2OIO and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs

¶34

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

sD/. P PAoMANAREt,EFRiX/ 81"' //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

1. Iffi3t':'Jg,B1',","fisfl:!&1"393:'fl:l'x'fi3e&"3i.1;Iryrf;slilgirioivision' 3 4 Tf, :"1i.:flit.5tiil.tl3-,:yf,:.ft :Xi:gs":iifldffi "t'RansaReddvDistrict 5 ?*: 33Jii3Jr".lf"ti"T,t:*iin^{i",i"t- the stati:or retansana [oUr]} 6 Two CD Copies MBC n"rfn-

¶38

HIGH COURT

¶39

DATED: 2811112023

¶40

1ili STA re:
'1 l uic 2!23 va
-T
.''.., $
\i,,
....-
RDER

¶41

WP.No.35827 of 2014

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶43

Rc{&QA
t\r Tl-)

¶44

WITHOUT COSTS

Smt.P.Shoba v. State of Telangana, Revenue Department, rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.P.Shoba v. State of Telangana, Revenue Department, rep.by Its

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

Nayikoti Suneetha W/o Valmiki Vs The District Collector,Medak district

Smt. Raju Bai, Vs Sri Ramesh, Tahsildar

Smt. Sushama Kaur, Vs Sri Mruthanjaya Sahu

Merugu Posu, Adilabad Dist. Vs the Govt.of Telangana, Revenue,Hyd.,and 3 Otrs.

M.Chandra Shekar Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Saleem Metal Industries, 12-2-825/7/2, Vs The Collector, Ranga Reddy District