Allowed

Maloth Maji v. the State of Tg., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 5 Others

Telangana HC26 Apr 2023WP/36697/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State Government (Respondent No. 1) to dispose of a pending revision petition filed under Section 6 of the Telangana Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Act 1959 within three months and granted additional custody regarding the property in dispute.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of Revision Petition within 3 months and grant additional custodial rights to petitioner.

Maloth Maji Vs the State of Tg., Rep… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^3303]

¶2

¶3

loo*^o HrGH^{cou Rff} x1 llt :$lt^st tsP*'fii^{&iJrrii Jurisdictionl}

¶4

-",n:silourg'a'H"')[$?i'-REl'''

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSNCE J'SREENIVASRAO}

¶7

7 OF²⁰¹⁵ w RITP TI N No:

¶8

Beween:

¶9

USlf,^{:'33:Piffi : J5'J:[#l f :fi';::l;}

¶10

X3li.',L,.Y3l'h,y3,,Y'%?X?-33:

¶11

AND

¶12

ru,-u;-u,'m,lmNfmrlffi.;

¶13

...RESPONDEN^TS

¶14

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court maybe} pleased to issue writ^{or directionpreferablywrit of mandamusdeclaring the} inactionoftheRespondentNo.lindisposingoftheStayPetitionfiledalongwith Civil Revision Petition^{filed on '15-1 0-2015 as arbitrary and violative of principles of} the natural^{justice and consequentlydirect the Respondent No.1 to dispose of the} appeal along with the^{stay Petitionfiledalong with civilRevision Petitionfiled on} 15-10-2o15'asearlyaspossibleWithinthereasonabletimeandpasssuchother or further orders^{as this Hon',blecourt deems fit and proper in the circumstancesof} the case

¶15

l.A. NO:1 oF2 015(WPMP. NO 47268 oF2015)

¶16

petition under Sect th e arr circum s ra nces sta red in i d av it "o,, .,r;;;'; ;: _,':;:ff l,H :: :* the Respondenrs ro sravlhe dispossession .il;"[1":iffi: ::J::' survey No. Z/9, admeasuring an extent ofAc.3_06gts, sit Mflase, Kothasudem Mandat. Khammam Disrricr in rhe interest J;j::"::.r*rram

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner: RAVuL;pli;." sRl ARJITH VERMA FoR sRt SREENTyASA RAo Counsel for the Responden FoR socrAl wELFARE counser ror the Res;ono",l|il33.J fu1'-1o"

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.36697 of 2()15

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri Arjith Verma, learned counsel representing Sri Ravulapati Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfarc appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4. Notice in respect of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner is seeking disposal of the Revision petition which is pending before respondent No. 1.

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.l in not disposing of the Stay Petition filed along with Civil Revision Petition on 15-1O-2O15 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of the natural justice.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the petitioner filed Revision Petition before the respondent No.l aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2 in CMA No.50 of 2012 dated 27.O9.2O14 confirming the order passed by respondent No.3 in LTR Case No.2l4/O7 / KGM, dated 37.Oa.2OO7. The petitioner filed Revision Petition under Section 6 of the Telangana State

¶24

Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation⁷ / 1959 (hereinafter rcferred to as 'the Act' for brevit5r) on 15.1O.2O15. Along with Revision Petition, the^petitioner also filed Stay Application seeking stay of operation of the order passed by the respondent Nos.2 ald 3. The respondent No. t has not passed order in the stay application or in the revision petition. In the meanwhile, thc respondent No.4 is trying to dispossess the^petitioncr from the subject property. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the Revision Petition by fixing reasonable tirne. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare requested the Court to direct the respondent No.l to dispose of the Revision Petition fiIed by the petitioner by granting reasonable time.

¶26

A perusal of the record would reveal that the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is pending before the respondent No. 1 .

¶27

[n view of the pendency of statutory Revision, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition

¶28

t. I

¶29

ls^(iisl)osc(l oI dircctir]8^{tllc tcspolrtlotltl\io' I li) r[isllosc ol-} tlrc [RcvisioD Petitiott^{filecl ltY tlre} l)Clili()11(-t "r'rtlritt^{a Pct'iorl} ()l thr-cc (O.l) molltlls fro ur thc^{(l{r1c {)[ rc( ci!)l oI ilc()l)' ol-} tlli:i or(lcr, aftcr^{gn'ingtloti<:cittlrl} ')l)l)()r1r'lrritv^l(rtll(- l)ctitioncr^{as wcllas unofficierlt-cspott<lct.tt Nos 5 atlcl (r itr} ;r.r'orcl:r ttcrr rviLh l:^{v. Tillsrrclr titllc, l)otll1lr(r} l)arli(rs^ilrc rlrrcctccl l() nr:liutzrin -sl.rlIl:i^{(llra) lll rcsl)('Cl ol- slll)-i(:(rt} pr o1r<'11t'-

¶30

-1 . 1li ctrsposed of. Ncr Accot-(tingly, thc wlit l)ctition

¶31

r,r rlcr :rs t()^(:osts

¶32

As :r seqrtel^{lhercto,nliscellalleousrrlrplicatiotrs,if}

¶33

rrny, lrencling in this^{writ pctition'.stlall slalrtls closed}

¶34

9DI MOHD. ISD/AIL ASSIdTANT REGIgt'RAR

¶35

/ITRUE^COPY// SECTIou 8rrrcen

¶36

To 1 The Principal^{Secretary,Tribal Welfare Department Secretiariat' Hyderabad'} State of^Telangana.

¶37

2 The Additional Aqent^{to the Uovernment, Bhad.rachalam'Khammam District} 3 iij;'S;il;i ilr;-uiv^{bollector,Bhaa rachitam'Knammam District'} 4 i# Y5X;iier;. k6iriasudum^{Viiiige and Mandal'{hammamDistrict'} 5 ci"l btiii snr'ideEr.lvnsn^{CAo nnvuueAlt,Advocate [oPUc]} 6 Y# Edr'i""Gi}o-n^{Sociaui'vetrAnE,Hish court for the stateor} iJringina,^{at Hyderabad.} [oUT]

¶38

7 Two CD^CoPies

PSK. GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610412023

ORDER

WP.No.36697 of 2015

-i l.iE S rA i'* ('.,1
a' 0 s ilAY ?fl1

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶46

D
NNA-_
q t <\r> )'

Maloth Maji v. the State of Tg., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maloth Maji v. the State of Tg., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 5 Others

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

Komaram Anil kumar and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Vankdothu Sugunamma, Khammam District and 5 Others Vs Dist. Conservator of Forest, Khammam District and 2 Others

Sri. Kannedari Vara Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana

Gottimukkala Viswanadha Raju and Ano. Vs Dir. of Settlements, Itda and 2 Ors.

Chava Lingaiah, Khammam Dist. Vs Secy. S.W. (Ltr) Dept. Hyd and 5 Others

M/s Sri Sai Srinivasa Agencies Vs The State of Telangana