Allowed

Thakur Dayaram Singh v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC10 Dec 2024WP/1614/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of agricultural pattas. The court held that proceedings were invalid due to the lack of notice to the petitioners. It set aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2013 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 18.11.2013 set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration after issuing notice and holding personal hearing.

Thakur Dayaram Singh Vs The State of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t³³⁰² J

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1614 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thakur Dayaram Singh, S/o Annu Singh, aged 65 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o H.No.7-3-50, Panagal, Nalgonda District

¶9

Smt Savitri Bai, Wo Thakur Dayaram Singh aged 60 years, Occ Housewife, Rl/o H.No.7-3-50, Panagal, Nalgonda District

¶10

...PETIT]ONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda

¶14

The Joint Collector, Nalgonda District,

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District

¶16

The Tahsildar, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶17

V. Brahma Chari, S/o. Achari, Aged about 58 years, Rl/o. 8-1-8461611, Padmavathi Colony, Railway Station Road, Ramagiri, Nalgonda.

¶18

Yata Sathi Reddy, S/o. Y. Narsi Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Fl/o. 8-1-846/9, Padmavathi Colony, Railway Station Road, Ramagiri, Nalgonda.

¶19

Akunuri Laxmaiah, S/o. Tirupathaiah, Aged about 54 years, R/o. 7-5€2, Panagal Area, Nalgonda.

¶20

Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are impleaded as per C.O.dt. 11.07.2024 in lA No. 112017 WP MP No. 1951 ot 20171.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the ckcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling the records pertaining to Letter No.B/737l2013 dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Respondent No.4 and quash the said proceedings

¶23

after declaring them as iflegar, arbitrary against the principres of Naturar Justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia.

¶24

l.A. NO:1 OF 2O1 WPMP. NO:1918 oF 2014

¶25

Petition under Section i Sl CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of orders in refter No.Br737r2o13 dated 18.1 1.2013.

¶26

l.A. NO: 1 oF 201 MP. NO: 7771 0F 2015

¶27

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to extend the stay granted on 16_12-2014 in W.p.No. 1614 of 2O14.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioners: SRI P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 5: AGp FOR ASSI.NMENT

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to B: SRI G.MANOHAR

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

f.,

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.1614 OF 2Ol4

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of

¶36

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶37

"...to issue order or direction more particularlg in the nature of Writ of Certiorai by calling the records pertaining to Letter No.B/737/2013, dated 18.11.2O13 passed by the Respondent No.4 and quash the said proceedings afier declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, against the Principles of Notural Justice and uiolatiue of Articles 14, 21 and 30O-A of Constitution of India and pass..."

¶38

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and learned Counsel appearing for the unoflicial respondent Nos.6 to 8 and perused the entire materia-l on record.

¶39

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the Letter No.B 1737 /2013, dated 18. 11.2013 passed by the respondent No.4 for cancelling the pattas in favour of the

¶40

¶41

¶42

SK'J W.P.No.I614^{of 2014}

¶43

petitioners in the suit schedule^{property. As per the} impugned orders,^{without issuing notices to the petitioners,} the respondents have^{cancelled their pattas in impugned} proceedings,

¶44

Learned Assistant^{Government Pleader for} Assignmcn.t and^{learned counsel for theunofficial} respondents are unabie^{to show the notices issuedto the} petitioners before^passing the^{impugnedorders.}

¶45

The respondents without^{issuing any noticesto the} petitioners and without^{giving an opportunitycannotpass} any orders for cancelling^{the pattas which are in favour of} the petitioners.

¶46

In view of the above^{circumstances,the writ petition} is disposed of by^{setting aside the impugnedproceedings} uide t etter No.B/737 l2013,^{dated18.11 2013 and} remanded the matter to^{the respondentNo'4 for fresh} consideral.ion after issuing^{notice to the petitionersas well}

¶47

¶48

SI(,J W.P.No.1614 of 2014

¶49

as the unofhcial respondents including personal hearing of

¶50

both sides and pass appropriate orders as per law within

¶51

three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this

¶52

order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶54

closed.

¶55

SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA^RAO ASSISTANT REGI$TRAR //TRUE COPY// A/ SECTION OFFICER \

¶56

To,

¶57

The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department,Secretariat' Hyderabad' State} of Telangana.

¶58

The District Collector,^{Nalgonda District, Nalgonda}

¶59

The Joint Collector,^{NalgondaDistrict,}

¶60

The Revenue^{Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District}

¶61

The Tahsildar,^{Nalgonda, Nalgonda District}

¶62

One CC to^{SRI P.S.P'SURESH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶63

One CC to SRI^{G.MANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶64

S.TwoCCstoGPFoRASSIGNMENT,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

¶65

Two CD CoPies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1011212024

ORDER

WP.No.1614 of 2014

---_=
i :'f- S 14 Ir
.>({
L025
01 ji<br>

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

€If',* h,

Thakur Dayaram Singh v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Dayaram Singh v. The State of A.P.

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.Bhikshapathi Goud, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Moorthy Ranga Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District

Syed Shabbir, Mahabubnagar District Vs Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyderabad and 5 Others

Sana Tadi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Padamati Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Vs The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar

Shaik Salar Vs The Collector,Medak District,at Medak