Disposed

Pabba Ravinder , Mangali Ravinder v. The Tahsildar

Telangana HC9 Jan 2023WP/588/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226, set aside an endorsement issued by the Tahsildar for lacking reasoning and hearing. The court remanded the matter with a direction to the Revenue authorities to pass reasoned orders and provide an opportunity of hearing to the parties before deciding on the mutation and issuance of title deeds.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement No. B1377/2022 dated 30-12-2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Respondents 1 and 2 to issue notice, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass reasoned orders on the

Pabba Ravinder , Mangali Ravinder Vs The Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3168 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 588 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pabba Ravinder @ Mangali Ravinder, S/o Mangali Pettaiah, Aged. 51 Yrs, Occ. Barbar, R/o. H.No. 1-5, Sathamrai Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R, District - 500052.

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Tahsildar, Balangar Mandal, Balanagar, [/ahbubnagar District. The District Collector, [Vlahbubnagar, [Vlahbubnagar District

¶12

'l The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahbubnagar Division, [Vahbubnagar District 4 The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to Endorsemenl No.Bl377l2O22 O|.3O-12-2O22 on the file of 1st Respondent and Quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to .provisions of 3B-E of Tenancy Act,1 950 and violative of ratio laid down by Supreme Court of lndia in Civil Appeal No.2506 of 2021 Thota Sridhar Reddy and Ors versus Mandala Ramulamma and Ors Dt.O1-10-2021 reported in 2021 SSC Online SC 851 and as well as Sada and Etc. etc. Vs The Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad reported in AIR 1988 AP 77 D1.24-O9-'1987 wherein Protected Tenant is declared as owner and consequently direct the Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 herein to issue E-Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deeds for Sy-No.103 of Balanagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahbubnagar District to Writ Petitioner in view of he being declared as successor of Late Mangali Mallaiah the original PT of land in Sy.No.'103 of Balanagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahbubnagar District in view of Proceedings No.8137712022 D1.27^-06-2O22 on the file of 1st Respondent, in the lnterest of Justice.

¶15

¶16

IA NO i¹ 0F²⁰²³

¶17

PetitionunderSectlonl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the p"iition, ine HighCourt may-be,pleased. to} olr".t t"^{Respondent trlo.t, z and ito issue E-Pattedar Pass BookandTitle} o""0. rot.^{Sy iilo.l03 of BalanagarVillage,B-alanagar tvlandal, Itlahbubnagar} D;iri;, by suspending^{EnJorsem"entNo.Bt377l2O22Dt.3O- 12-2022 on the file of} 1st Respondent^{Pending Disposal of the Writ Petition'}

¶18

CounselforthePetitioner:SRIB.SUDHAKARREDDYREPRESENTINGFoR SRI B. LOKESHWAR^REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondents: ASST'GP FOR REVENUE}

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.588 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri B. Lokeshwar Reddy, learned counsel appearing lor the petitioner ald learned^Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue appearing^lor respondents. Perused the record.

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned cndorsement vide proceedings No.Bl377 12022,^dated 30-12-2022 of respondent No. I. On the^{strength of} proceedings dated 27-06-2022 of respondent^No.1, peiitioner has submitted a representation dated 06-07-2022 with respondent No.l with a^{request to} mutate his name in Revenue records in respect^{of subjcct} land i.e., Ac.0-32 gts., in Sy.No. I03 situated at^Balanagar village and mandal, Mahabubnagar District and aiso^to issue E-pal.tedar passbooks and title deeds in favour of

¶27

¶28

the petitioner and his brothers whose details^are specifically mentioned therein. Since the said application was not con sidered, petitioner has filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.393B 1 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 26-10-2022 granted liberty to the^petitionerto submit online application in terms of CCLA's Circular No.ll2021 , dated l5-Ol-2O21 with respondent No.2 with a request to mutate his name and issue tr-pattedar passbook.

¶29

The petitioner has made online applications vide I.D.Nos. CP22OOO15667 and CP2200015668 both dated 29-lO-2O22 wilh respondent No.2 u,ith a request to mutate his name and issue E-passbook. There is no reference to the said applications and there is no reference to the aforesaid order in the impugned endorsement dated 30-12-2022 of respondent No.1. There is no relerence to his own proceedings dated 27-06-2022.

¶30

The aloresaid impugned endorsement dated 30-12-2Q22 is not on consideration of proceedings dated 27-06-2022, order dated 26-lO-2O22 in W.P.No.39381 of 2022 and online applications dated 29- lO-2O22. It is not a reasoned order. Therefore, on the said ground, the impugned endorsement bearing No.Bl 377 /2022, dated 30-12-2022 of respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside

¶31

In view of the aJoresaid discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned endorsement bearing No.Bl377 12022, dated 30-12-2022 of respondent No.l and matter is remanded back with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders afre sh assigning specific reasons by putting the petitioner and all affected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, they shall assign specific reasons, pass a reasoned order and communicate copy of the same to the petitioner.

They shail complete the entire exercise, as expeditiously

¶37

as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶39

pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶40

SD/.A.P IMA ASSISTANT REGI

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SECTION FFICER To, 1 The Tahsildar, Balangar Mandal, Balanagar, Mahbubnagar District. 2 The District Collector, Mahbubnagar, [Vlahbubnagar District J The Revenue Divisional Officer, ll/ahbubnagar Division, Mahbubnagar District 4 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 One CC to SRI B. LOKESHWAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. tourl 7. Two CD Copies BN BS ,/

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910112023

ORDER

WP.No.588 of 2023

'^G 1i{E ST4 fr-
k
i
(
r.
t3 19 JAil m
if
,, .3o.
.. i n
FspnrcP, r()

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

<br>5

Pabba Ravinder , Mangali Ravinder v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pabba Ravinder , Mangali Ravinder v. The Tahsildar

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

Danturi Manik Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Chinni Raj Kumar and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Sunkireddy Ramadevi Vs Sunkireddy Gayatri

B.Anitha Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Rohith Kedia Vs Regional Passport Office and another

B. Anuradha Vs The state of Telangana