Disposed

Makka Mallesham v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023WP/9068/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench of the Telangana High Court disposed of Writ Petition No.9068 of 2023. The court directed Respondent No.5 to consider and dispose of an appeal filed by the petitioner within three months and ordered that miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ stand closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.5 to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose of it as per law within three months; miscellaneous petitions in the writ stand closed.

Makka Mallesham Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^316E ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:9068 oF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Makka .Malleshgm, S/9, Bixam, Aged about 58 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Nallela Village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State. of Telangana, Bgp.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department

¶12

^^{(Land andSurvey Records), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, T.S.} 2. The commissioner, Land and Survey Records, Narayanguda, Hyderabad

¶13

The District Collector, Mahabubabad District.

¶14

The District Survey officer, Mahabubabad District

¶15

The Asst. Director of Survey, Mahabubabad District.

¶16

The Dy. inspector for Survey, Mahabubabad District.

¶17

The Mandal Revenue Officer, kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶18

The Mandal Surveyor, kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District

¶19

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahbubnagar District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 ot the 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the official respondents in conducting survey and sub-division of survey numbers and fix the boundaries for the land in Sy.No.SiAl , ltA, 14gtA1 , totat land admeasuring Ac.3-20gts., having Passbook No.T25100190170 vide Katha No.400, situated at Nallela Village, kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District in spite of orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P No. 39405 of 2022 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the official respondents to conduct survey and fix the boundaries for the said land.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition unde^' {iection 151 CPC praying that in the ci^{-r;rrmstances} stated in the affidavit filcd ir support of the petition, the High Cour. 'nay be pleased be pleased to dirr--ct t e official respondents to conduct sun elv & sub-division of survey numbefs iln, lrx the broundaries for the land in Sy.lJ,:. 511,1 , 5lA, 1491A1 , Total land adrreast ring Ac.3-209ts., situated at Nallela Vi l:rge, kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad Distri t, having Passbook No.T2510019O17O,rroe Katha No.400, in spite of orders pass:d by this Hon'ble Court in W.P No. 394C5 cf 2022 pending disposal of the abovr vrrit petitlon.

¶24

Counsel for the Peti :ioner: SRI JANARDHAN GOUD SUNKp.R^I Counsel for the Res rondents: SRI J.AMRUTH RAO, AGP FOti: REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

I J

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.^LAKSHMAN

¶28

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.9o68 of 2023}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard Sri^{JanardhangoudSunkari, learnedcounsel} appearing^{for the petitionerand Sri J' Amruth Rao' Iearned} Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor Revenueappearing for} respondents'^{Perusedthe record'}

¶31

¶32

The petitioner^{is claiming that he is the absoluteowner} and^{possessor ofland admeasuring Ac'2-2O gts''in} Sy.No.5/A,^{Ac.O-11gts', in SyNo'5/A1 and Ac'O-29 gts'' in} Sy.No.149/A1^{situated at Nallelavillage' Kuravi mandal'} Manabubabaddistrict.onhisrequest,respondentNo'7has conducted^{survey on 05-11-2022 and submitted report'The} Tahsildar,^{Korivi mandalhad issued Memodated 22-ll-2o22} stating^{that the report of Mandal Surveyor disclosedthe phodi} record^{and supplementary sethwar are not availablefor the} aforesaid^{survey numbers' Therefore' he was not in a position} toshowtheboundariesofthesubjectlands.Itisa-lso reported^{that the petitioner did not scribe his sigrrature on the} panchanama.^{Feeiing aggrieved by the said report'petitioner} herein had^{filed an appeal beforerespondentNo'5 vide ID}

¶33

.r!;,' .&S€,,{

¶34

No.A(.)D0j 230OOSC6O1 ciarecl 3l _O1,2O2i1. [):sprte r_cceivrng and i,rcl.:n ,r.r.ledging the said appeal, resprinc[: rrt No.5 did not act ul)c)n t hr: sarne, Lherelore , the presertt r.,.r-it tti:t.rtion.

¶35

Whe e,es learned Assistant Gover.rne:_rt pk,adr:r fcr Revenue, t n instructions, wotrld submit that r.r:.sptndenl. No.5 r,r,ill cons;ic er. the aloresaid appeal filed b.1, th e peLitioner arrcl dispose of he same in accordance witl_r l:lnr.

¶36

In 'rit u, of the aforesaid cliscussit>n. Lirrs ivrir_ peLition is dispos,::d ol , rlirsctlr)g respondent No.5 to cor_r sirler the appcal filed b1. Lh, , petitio,er vide ID No.AODO223C0,150601 dated 3 i -0 1- ,10t2: zLnd di:;pose of the sane, strictll_ in irccorda.c:e q,ith la u., z s expeditiousi.l. as possible, preti:r.rrbl.y r,vithin a period of r,h e,: (3) rnr.;nths liom thc date oj.recorr)t c,f a cop), of this ord er 'l hr:re sheLll be no ordcr as to costs.

¶37

Asr a sr quel, the miscr:llaleous petitrons. i:. an.,z, pr:nding in thc \/rit. I:tition sleail starLcl closcd.

¶38

¶39

SD/- P. PADMI\NABHA REDDY AS:J1;;11.11 REGIsTRAR //TRUE COPYII <[) SECTION OFFICER

¶40

¶41

1 The As..rt [)ir rctor of Strrvey. tvlahabubabad Distrrct. 2 One CC to S tt JANARIIHA iy."":,!^j l,1^{li,## [E ile N,E: Ho. i B]trfl ;,ff "ff ill, JFffi, n,, u} t 4 Two CD Copi rs PSK. GJP

I t

j I II I

HIGH COIJIIT

DATED::041)412023

ORDER

wP.No.906it of 2023

-1 - -, '-- i:l i r.^
(tr
/.4.:- {.
'l 0 li::{ ?:l?l

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C CSTS.

¶50

(i)
P-
L il<br>b/
v' .7
b t'}.<br>

Makka Mallesham v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Makka Mallesham v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

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

M/s Scr Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 4 others

Sabavath Laxman Vs The State of Telangana

Sriharsha Majety Vs Union Bank of India

Jogula Sammaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Goli Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Vandanampu Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana