Allowed

G.v.Anand Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Dec 2023WP/37105/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a land succession application. The Court held that the revenue authorities erred in rejecting the application without hearing the petitioner to prove the death date of the grandfather, which was already recorded in an order from 1969, rather than relying solely on the absence of a death certificate issued post-1970.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed setting aside the rejection report; matter remanded to Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to reconsider the application after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and liberty to furnish t

G.v.Anand Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶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 NO: 37105 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

G.V.Anand Krishna, S/o Late G.V.Rajasimha Rao, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, Resident of Plot No 3'1 1, Ground Floor, Hitech City, Ivlancherial 504208

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Nampally, Hyderabad,Telangana.

¶13

The District Collector, Mancherial District, [\rlancherial.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer Bellampally, Mancherial District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Bellampally lvlandal, Arlancherial District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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, order or direction, preferably in the nature of a Writ of fVandamus by declaring the action of the respondents rejection of the application No 2100933989 dated 0511012021 for grant of succession of the land to an extent of Acres 1.2920 guntas, Acres 3.3600 guntas and Acres 15.3400 guntas in Sy Nos 165/3, 196 and 251 respectively of Akinepalli Village, Bellampally Mandal, Mancherial District by The Respondent No 3 basing upon the recommendations of The Respondents No 4 and 5 through their letters in Rc.No C/362212021 dated 0111212021 and Rc No 8/98'1/2021 daled 0111212021 as respectively as illegal, invalid and arbitrary and u nconstitutio nal and consequently set aside the rejection order.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

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 permit the petitioner to file additional material papers in w.p.No. 37105 ol 2021.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.V.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37105 OF 2021

¶24

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

¶26

".. . to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, preferably, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondents in rejecting the application No.2100933989 dated 05.10.2021 for grant of succession of the land to an extent of Acres 1.2920 guntas, Acres 3.3600 guntas and Acres 15.3400 guntas in Survey Nos.165/3, 196 and 251 respectively of Akinepalli Village, Bellampally Mandal, Mancherial District, by the respondent No.3 basing upon the recommendations of respondent Nos.4 and 5 through their letters in Rc.No.Cl3622/2021 dated 01.12.2021 and Rc.No.B/981/2021 dated 01.12.2021 as respectively as illegal, invalid and arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the rejection order and pass such..."

¶27

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents, and perused the material on record.

¶28

Written instructions received by leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue are placed on record. Petitioner has submitted application bearing No.2100933989 for grant of succession in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.|.2920 guntas,

Acs.3.3600 guntas and Acs.15.3400 guntas in Survey Nos.16513, 196 and 251 respectively situated at Akinepalli Village, Bellampally Mandal, Mancherial District before respondent No.5. It appears that application was forwarded by respondent No.5 to respondent No.4 and impugned order dated Ql.lZ.2)Zl in Rc.No.C/362212021 was passed rejecting the succession application of the petitioner which was approved by respondent No.3 - The District Collector. The relevant portion of impugned recommendation/report of respondent No.4 - Revenue Divisional Officer dated0l.12.2021 is extracted below:

¶33

"On verification of revenue records i.e., Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 the land in Sy.Nos.l96 and 251 to an extent of Acs.9.3600 guntas and Acs.20.00 guntas and Stands as Patta land is in the name of Venkata Mutyam Rao and continued till now and as per Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 the land in Sy.No.165, Ext: 15.06 Gts patta land is in the name of Venkata Mutya Rao and after various transactions taken place in Sy.No.165 in various persons in Dharani pahani Venkata Mutyam Rao is recorded as pattadar to an extent of Acs.1.2920 Gts respectively situated at Akenapalli Village of Bellampally Mandal.

¶34

Later Sri Gona Venkata Muthyam Rao was expired on 13.11.1965 and in the above said land all the cultivators are given that they have No Objection for grant of Succession to deceased Pattadar Grand Son and pattadar not having Possession on the above said Sy.Nos., due to this reasons, the above said Sy.Nos. was marked as NON DS. After

¶35

¶36

¶37

demise of Venkata Mutyam Rao his Grand Son Sri Gona Venkata Anand Krishna has filed an application through Mee Seva for grant succession.

¶38

Further it is to submit that the proposed land is not an Assigned land and it is neither covered by any litigation/Court Cases/Agriculhrral ceiling surplus land,/tank bed land.

¶39

Further it is to submit that present applicant has not submitted certificate of the deceased pattedar, who was died in the year 1965 due to which the Application No: 2100933989 may be negitivated.

¶40

Hence, the request of the applicant is recommended for rejection."

¶41

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that death certificate of late Mr. Gona Venkata Mutyam Rao, grandfather of the petitioner was not submitted is un-tenable and without any application of mind. Grandfather of the petitioner died on 13.11.1965 and there is no official record in proof of his death. The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, (for short 'the Act, 1969') came into force on 01.04.1970. As grandfather of the petitioner died on 13.11.1965, the question ofthe petitioner in producing the death certificate of his grandfather under the

¶42

¶43

¶44

provisions of the Act, 1969 would not arise. Respondent authorities have mechanically rejected the application of the petitioner without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing

¶45

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, afhdavit has been submitted by all the cultivators who are in possession of the land to show that the petitioner is in physical possession of the subject land and that originally grandfather was the owner of the land and he is no more alive. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the date of death of the grandfather of the petitioner, late Mr. Raja Venkata Muthyam Rao was noted in the company application No.53 of 1968 and order dated 21.04.1969 was passed in the said application. It is stated that late Mr. Raja Venkata Muthyam Rao was the party in the said application and after his death, his legal heirs were brought on record.

¶46

I have perused the order dated, 21.04.1969. In paragraph No.2 of the order, it is recorded that late Mr. Raja Venkata Mutyam Rao died on 13.11.1965. In the opinion of this Court, respondent authorities did not give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to prove that grandfather of the petitioner

¶47

I I

¶48

¶49

died on^{13.11.1965. Despite the fact that the there is no death} certificate^issued by^{any authority/office, prima} facie,^{from the} aforesaid order dated^{21.04.1969,it is clearthat grandfatherofthe} petitioner died on 13.11.1965.^{However, it appearsthat the same} was not brought to the^{notice to respondent authorities and} according to the^{petitioner he was not afforded an opportunity of} hearing.

¶50

In the circumstances, writ^{petition is allowedsettingaside} the reporilrecommendation^{of respondentNo.3. The matteris} remanded to respondent^{Nos.3 to 5, who shallre-considerthe} succession application of^{the petitioner bearingNo.2100933989} dated 05.10.2021, by^{giving opportunity of hearing to him'} Further, the^petitioner is^{given tibertyto furnish additional} documents including^{copy of the order dated 21'04'1969in} company application^{No.53 of 1968, to prove his claim. On} receipt of such application^{along with relevantdocuments,orders} shall be passed by^{respondent Nos.3to 5 within a period of one (1)} month from the^{date of receiptof a copyof this order' There shall} be no order^{as to costs.}

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,

¶55

if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

SD/- K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR v

¶58

SECTTON OFFICER

¶59

¶60

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

¶61

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration^{Nampally,Hyderabad,} Telangana.

¶62

J. The District Collector, Mancherial District, Mancherial.

¶63

The Revenue Divisional Officer Bellampally, [Vlancherial^District.

¶64

The Tahsildar, Bellampally Mandal, [\Iancherial^District.

¶65

o. One CC to SRI D.V.SRINIVASA RAO,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court^{for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad. [OUT] o. Two CD Copies PSK. GJ \ ,Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811212023

ORDER

WP.No.37105 of 2021

1 $e STAr5'
7
C)
of,o 1g J[li ?[2[ J]
*
,t)
o[!ij,'-:

¶74

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶75

G.v.Anand Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.v.Anand Krishna 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