Partly allowed

Smt.Keesara Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jan 2023WP/38651/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash the District Collector's order refusing to decide an appeal under the Telangana Abolition of Inam Act. The Court held the District Collector acted in defiance of this Court's earlier order. According to the assignment given by this Court, it is the Additional Collector who is the competent authority. The appellants are directed to file the appeal with the Additional Co

What did the court decide?

Directing the Additional Collector to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law within six weeks with due notice and opportunity of hearing.

Smt.Keesara Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

i I I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 38651 OF 2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt.Keesara Lakshmi, W/o Late Keesara Narasimha, Occupation: Housewife, Rl/o H.No.5-378/4, Ambedkar Nagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Yapral Alwal, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶12

Keesara Bhagyalakshmi, D/o Late Keesara Narasimha, Occ: Pvt.Service, R/o H.No.5-378/4, Ambedkar Nagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Yapral Alwal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶13

Keesara Ramakrishna, S/o Late Keesara Narasimha, Occ Pvt. Service Ryo H.No.5-378/4, Ambedkar Nagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Yapral Alwal, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶14

Keesara Mukesh, S/o Late Keesara Narasimha, Occ Pvt. Service R/o H.No.S378/4, Ambedkar Nagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Yapral Alwal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

'1. The State of Telangana, represented by Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

The Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Anthaipally Village, Shamirpet Mandal,Medchal Malkaigiri District

¶19

Kavali Chandrasekhar, S/o Late.Narayana, Occ: Business R/o.5-4-88,Kindi Basti,Yapral Village, Medchal Malka.lgiri District.

¶20

Kavali Surender, S/o Late.Narayana, Occ: Govt.Servant.(VRo). Ryo.5-488,Kindi Basti,Yapral Village, Medchal Malkajqiri District

¶21

The Additional Collector, Ivledchal Malkajgiri District, Anthaipally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶22

(R5 is impleaded as per Court Order daled 07.02.2022 in l.ANo.2 ot 2022)

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

¶25

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe 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 o'certiorari quashing the order of the 2nd respondent (The Distrrct Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri district) dated 24.9.2022 refusing to decide the appeal of the^petit oners in F 1150912020 on merits as illegal, arbitrary and against law and direct the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal of the petitioners in F1150912020 on meriis in the interest of^justice;

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶27

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 grant an injunction rerstraining the respondents nos.3&4 from alienating or altering the nature of the land in Sy.No.138 of Yapral Village, Alwal Mandal, Medchal tvlalka.igiri District pending disposal of the writ petition in interest of justice;

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. R RANGANATHAN

¶29

Counsel for the Resoondent Nos 1, 2 & 5: SRI J. AMRUTH RAO LEARNED AGP FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos 3 & 4: SRI KANTHALA ASHOK REDDY

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

¶33

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶34

WIIIT PtrTIT'[ON No.38651OF 2022

¶35

OITDER:

¶36

Heard Sri R.Ranganatl.raft, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Amruth Rao, leamed Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue and Sri Kanthala Ashok Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the record.

¶37

This writ petition is filed to set aside the order dated 24.09.2022 passed b;- 2"d respon,-lent refusing to decide the appeal vide No.Fl/509/2020 of the petitioner-" on merits as illegal and consequently direct 2nd respondent to decide the said appeal.

¶38

Perusal ol the record v.ould reveal that the petitioners have filed an appeal under Section 24 c,[ the Telangana Abolition of lnam Act, 1955, challcnging the order dated 02.08.1997 passed in F.No.L/5553 of 1996 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division.^'Ihe said appeal was not considered. Therefore,3'd petitioner herein has flled writ petition vide V'/.P.No.33533 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 13.12.2021 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent No.2 i.c. District Collector to dispose of the said appeal vide No.Fl/50912020 plcterred b1'the petitioner and his family

¶39

¶40

members, in March, 2020, on its own m9r'its and strictiy in accordance with law, as expeditiousty as possible, preferably, within a period of twetve ( 12) weeks lrom the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Unforlunately, the District Collector, vide order dated 24.09.2022 ref'ening to G.O.No. 144, General Administration (Special) Dept. Dt.03.l 1.1967, G.O.Ms.No.77, Revenue dated 22.01.1968 and G.o.No.8l8 Rev.(Ser.I), Dept. dated 06.09.1990, dismissed the appeal say'ing that Joint Collector is the co:npetent authority to decide the petition. The Additional Collector/Sth respondent is a compr-tent authority to decide the aforesaid appeal.

¶41

In vierv or the aforesaici uiscussion, this ',vrit pctition is disposed ol directing . 5"' -rl responder:t/Additional Collector, Medchal, Malkajgiri District. to dispose of ihe aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioners strictly in accordance with lavr. by putting the petitioners and rcspondent Nos.3 and 4 on notice and affording them an oppoftunity of hearing. tle shall dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible prelcrabll' rvithin a per'iod six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy o1'this ordcr. I-iberly is granted to the petitioner and respondent Nos.J and 4 to take all the contentions/grounds which they havc raised in the

¶42

¶43

I I

¶44

present writ petition. 5th respondent shall consider the same and pass

¶45

appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶46

Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^pending, shall^also stand c losed.

¶47

SD/- MOHD, SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶48

NOTE: That the typographical error occurred in omitting R5 while typing the order dated 25 012023 in w P.No.38651 of 2O22 and lhe same has been added as R5 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 07 .O2.2O22 in I.A.No. 2 ol 2022

¶49

This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 21.02 2023

¶50

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶56

The Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Anthaipally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ir,4edchal Malkajgiri District

¶57

Kavali Chandrasekhar, S/o Late.Narayana, Occ: Business R/o.5-4-88, Kindi Basti,Yapral Village, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶58

Kavali Surender, S/o Late.Narayana, Occ Govt.Servant-(VRO). R/o.5-4-88, Kindi Basti,Yapral Village, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶59

The Additional Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Anthaipally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Diskict.

¶60

One CC to SRl. R RANGANATHAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to SRl. KANTHALA ASHOK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶63

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

KL, J

DATED: 2510112023

AIMENDED ORDER

WP.No.38651 of 2022

1-; STAT
(-
q
g o1 liu 7[?3
.-i<br>

¶70

WP IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS

Smt.Keesara Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Keesara Lakshmi 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

Golusula Ramulu Vs State of Telanga and 4 others

M/s Chaitanya Residential High School Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal

N. Anji Reddy Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Sabavath Neelavathi Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

G. Narsimha Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangna and 8 others

Medak Siddiramulu and 3 others Vs Chintha Ranamma and 3 others