Disposed

Vandanampu Yadaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023WP/9135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inclusion of the petitioner's land in the prohibited list. The High Court directed the District Collector to consider the pending online application, issue notice to parties, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks, following specific revenue instructions.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 3 to consider the online application, provide notice and opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

Vandanampu Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^3168l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PEI-{r{it

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶7

NO: 9135 OF

¶8

Vandanampu Yadaiah, S/o Late Durgaiah, aged about 71^years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Chennaiahpalem Village, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict

¶9

...PETrroNER

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration (Revenue) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Chief Commissioner Land Acquisition, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District,

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Miryalguda Division, Nalgonda District

¶14

The Tahsildar, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶15

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Respondent No. 3 to 5. in non/considering the online application of the Petitioher and non/initiating to delete the land of the Petitionerto an extent of Ac.0-20 gts in Sy.No.135l4l1l1, which is situated at Bejjikal Revenue Village, Tripurararn Mandal, Nalgonda District, which was uploaded in the prohibited list without having any prohibition and court direction is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14 and 300/A of the ConStitution of lndia and also in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the Respondent No. 3 to 5 to delete the land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 0-20 gts in Sy.No.135l4l1l1 , which is situated at Bejjikal Revenue Village, Tripurararn Mandal, Nalgonda District from the prohibited list

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF²⁰²³

¶17

the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto direct} -PetltionunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstathe Respondent^{No. 3 to 5 to deleted the land of the Petitionerto an ex ent} t edin^of Ac.0-20^{gts in Sy.No.135l4l1l1,which is situatedat Bejjikal Revenue Village,} Tripuraram^{Mandal, Nalgonda District from the prohibited list pending disposal of} the writ Petition

¶18

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶20

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶21

¶22

,'r.r r'l? 'rrr

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶24

WRIT ON No.9135 of 2ol23

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard lear.ed counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶27

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶28

Petitioner herein is claiming that he is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts in Sy.No. 135/4/l/1, situated at Bejjikal Revenue village, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. In prool'of,the same, rre has filed copies of Gift Settlement Deed and latest Pattadar passbook. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property is mentioned in prohibited list. Therefore, h"' had submitted online application No.LM2300001959 dated

¶29

¶30

04.06.2022 with the 3'd respondent with a request to delete the aforesaid property from the prohibited list. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said online application, the 3'd respondent did not act upon the same. Therefore, the present writ petition.

¶31

whereas, the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, on instructions would submit that the 3.d respondent will consider the said online application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

t #

¶33

¶34

In view of the said discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3'd respondent to consider the online application No.LM2300001959 dated 04.06.2022 submitted by rhe petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by putting the petitioner and all effected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. The 3'd respondent shall also consider the instructions issued by Chief Secretary and CCLA's Ref.No.CMRO/369112022 datecl 03.1I .2022. If 3'd respondenr is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall assign specific reasons and pass a reasoned order, comnrunicate copy of the said order to the petitioner and cornplete the said exercise within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶36

the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

SD/-A.V

ASSISTANT

,/TRUE COPY"

To, 1. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, 2. one CC t9 S1Sqpotu Bhaskar.Advocate [OpUC] 3. Two ccs to Gp For Revenue, High court for the state of Telangana. [OUTJ , J MBC- _!.^{Two CD Copies} i oeN,

HIGH COURT

DATED i 0410412023

I t'E e i-ii t t.
rt.
11 [Pil ?0i3 I
+

¶45

ORDER

¶46

WP.No.9135 of 2023

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PEIIflON

¶48

WTHOUT COSTS

¶49

Vandanampu Yadaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandanampu Yadaiah 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

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

Makka Mallesham Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others