Disposed

K. Ravikiran Reddy and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023WP/9321/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where petitioners challenged the inclusion of their agricultural land in the prohibited list. The court directed the Tahasildar to consider the deletion application, provide reasons if rejected, and complete the exercise within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the online application No. 2200076910, put parties on notice, assign specific reasons if the request is rejected, and complete the exercise within eight weeks.

K. Ravikiran Reddy and 2 others Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9321 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Ravikiran Reddy, S/o. K.Dharma Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business.

¶9

K. Sandeep Reddy, S/o K. Dharma Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ Business.

¶10

K. Shravan Reddy, S/o K. Dharma Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Business

¶11

All residents of Bogaram village of Keesara Mandal of Medchal Malkajigiri District.

¶12

..,PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration) Department, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Collector, l/edchal Malkajigiri District.

¶16

The Tahasildar (Sub-Registrar), Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkajigiri District

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Medchal Malkajigiri District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein for pending/adding the petitioners Agriculture lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-23 Guntas situated at Sy.No's 212lAAl2, 212lAAl3 and 212lAAl4, Bogaram Village of Keesara [\ilandal, Medchal Malkajigiri District under Prohibited list without following due process and without having any powers is wholly illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and consequently direct the respondent herein to remove the subject property under prohibited list.

¶20

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶21

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 direct the 3rd respondent to receive, register and release the document of Sale Deed presented by the petitioner in respect of Agriculture lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-23 Guntas situated at Sy.No's 212lAAl2, 212lAAl3 and 212lAAl4, Bogaram Village of Keesara Mandal, Ivledchal Malkajigiri, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.PONNAM MAHESH BABU Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.932l of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

I'leard learneci counsei lor the petitioners and learned AsSistant^{(ror"crnmclrt} l)leade| lilr Revenue.

¶27

Petitioners hercin arc claiming that they are absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.3-23 gts in Sy.Nos.212lAAl2, 2l2l LAl3 and 2l2lAAl4, situated at Bogaram Viltage, Keesara Mandal. Mcdchai Malkajgiri District, on the strength of a registered salc dced bcaring document No. 1978 of 2007 dated 19.12.2007. In proof'of thc same, they have filed copies of aforesaid sale dced, latest Pattadar passbook and title deed. Accolding to them, the aforesaid property is mentioned in prohibited [ist.^{-l-l-rerefore,} they have subrnitted online application No.2200076910 with the 2nd responclent with a request to delete the albresaid property fi'orn the prohibited list. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said online application, the 2nd respondent did not act upon thc same.^'l'herc{brc, thc present Writ I'etition.

¶28

Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for I{evenue, on instluctions would subrnit that the 2nd lespondent will

¶29

¶30

c()nsi(lel'thc said onlinc application sr"rbrnitted bl thc lretitioners irnd

¶31

p:rss applopriztte olclels in accoldancc 'r,itlt Iari..

¶32

ln vicu, ol the said discLrssion. this \,rit l)etition is disposecl ol' directing the l''d lcspondcnl to consicle r the orriinc application No.22000769 l0 subrnittcd b1 thc pr.rlitioncls and pass appropriaLc orclers in accordancc ',vith law b1'putting thc pctitionels and lcspondcnt No.4 on noticc and at'floldine thcnr rur opl)o rtl.ut it-' The 2nd rcspondcnt shall also considcr the instructions issucd by Chiel Secretary and CCll-A's RcLNo.CMIlOi369 I/1022 elaLcil 03 .t 1 .2022 lf, 2"d respondcnl is not inclined to acccpt lhc rcqLrest nrade by the pctitiorrcrs, hc shal! assign specilic reasons and pas,s ir rcasoned order, cornrnunicate copv o1- the said ordcr io thc petitioners and complete the said exercise within a pcliod ol'e iuht (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thcrc shalI be no order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, il'any, pcndirre in thc Writ l']etition shall stand closccl

¶34

SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I ( lt't SECTION OFFICER

¶35

¶36

The Principal Secretary, Revenue^{(Registration) Department, BRKR Bhavan,} State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶37

The Collector, fVedchal lValkajigiri^District.

¶38

2 The Tahasildar (Sub-Registrar), Keesara Mandal, fvledchal, Irilalkajigiri District 4 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department Medchal lt/alkajigiri District.

¶39

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

¶40

El' Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWI\4ENTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

1. One CC to SRI.PONNAIV MAHESH BABU, Advocate [OPUC] o. Two CD Copies

¶42

SA SB -..\ F-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610412023

ORDER

WP.No.9321 of 2023

1 t{E S TA , i:-
( +
r) 15 ilAY MR
L]
\ ,l
I:'-

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶50

e
%f

K. Ravikiran Reddy and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ravikiran Reddy and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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 Prabhakar Vs State Bank of India,and 2 others

Jogula Sammaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Goli Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Yagnesh Srivenkat, Vs Union of India

M/s Thopudu Bandla Chiru Vyaparula Sangam Vs the State of Telangana and 7 Others

Sri Dudu David, Vs The State of Telangana