Dismissed

Smt.Ryakala Vimala v. State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC16 Dec 2024WP/19728/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought implementation of mutation proceedings under the ROR Act for land he purchased. The ROR Act was repealed by the 2020 Act; the impugned order was set aside by the Special Tribunal. The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with liberty to raise grievances in pending W.P.No.7956 of 2021.

Smt.Ryakala Vimala Vs State of Telangana and 5 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 19728 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

!1t.lV.qt<a!q YinqLa,^{Wo: Krishna,Aged 59 years, Occ:Agricutture,} Vq.^t1 \tg._29^{t362164,DeendayataNagai, Neredrirer, Matkajgiri,'iMedchat-} Malkajgiri District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Collector and District Magistrate, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, M.Thurkapally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶16

Pulig.ari Srinivas Reddy, S/o: Ram Reddy, Aged 41 years, Occ: private Employee, Fl/o H-No-6:26l6/2, Teachers-Col-ony, - Near Bharat Gas, Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶17

Gade. Latha @ Lalha Reddy, W/o: Narender Reddy, Aged 34 years, Qcc:^{Housewife,Rl/o Plot No.107, Bhavaniplaza,ECt[ X Roads,} MedchalMalkajgiri 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 inaction of the Respondent No.4 in issuing Pattadar passbook-cum-Tifle Deed though and affected mutations in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the land in Sy.No.225 admeasuring Ac.6-31 guntas, situated at Velpupally Village, M.Thurkapally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District), after concluding the enquiry under the provisions the ROR Act and issuance of the Proceedings No.8/2282t2015, dated 31/08/2017, as

¶20

illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural^justice and violative of Articles 14 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents Authorities to implement the Regd.Sale Deed No.457512015, daled 1510412015 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar, Bhongir pursuant to the Proceedings No.81228212015, dated 3110812017 of the Respondent No.4-Tahsildar.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

Gounsel for the Respohdent No. 6: SRI K. JAGADISHWAR REDDY AND SRI P. VIJAY KUMAR,

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶27

\ t

¶28

U/RIT PETITION NO.T972A OF 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief :

¶31

".....to declare tlrc inaction of respondert No.4 in issrtirtg pottedar passbook-cum-tille deed though and affected mutatiotls in the reuenue records in fauour of the petitioner, in^respect oJ tlrc land in Sg.No.225 admeasuing Ac.6.31 gts., sttuQted at^VeLpupally vitlage, M.Turkapallg Mandal, Yadadri Bhongr District^(Erstwlite Nalgonda Distric|, after concluding the enquiry utlder^{theprotri-sions} of the ROR Act and issuance of lhe Proceediqs No.B/2282/2015, dated 31.08/ 2017, as illegal, erbitrary ond agaittst^{the pinctPles} of natural justice and uiolatiue of Arictes 14 ord 3OO A of lle Constitution of India".

¶32

It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the property through registered sale deed uirJe documenL No.4575/20 15 and he made an application seeking mutation and consequential issuance of pattedar passbooks as per [he provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short'ROR Act, 1971). It is further stated that the Tahsildar after conducting enquiry, issued proceedings in lavour of the petitioner but the same were not implemented, hence, this '"r.rit petition is filed.

¶33

t I

¶34

Sri Giridar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 has submitted that pending adjudication of Lhis writ petition, the ROR Act, 1971 has been repealed and replaced by the

CVBR,J wP 19724 2022

Telanganir Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act,9 of 2O2O. Further, hc strbmittccl that the impugned ordcr in this u,rit petition is thc su llccl mattcr of appe al on the file of Special Tribunal constitutc(l as per Lhc provisions of the Act, 9 of 2O2O and thc Speci:rl Tril;un:r[ has set aside thc impugned order. Therefore, the caLlse in t hc n'rit pctition no longer survive s frtr furf her adjudication. It is also submitted that questioning order passed by the Spccial^'lribunal, the petitioner has filed WP.No.7956l of 2O2l on thc filc ol this Courl and thc same is pending.

¶39

Accorrlrnglv, this rvrit petition is dismissed as inf.ucLous, lcaving it opcn to tl're petitioner to raise atl his grievances in W.P.No. l()5(r1 o[2O2 1 pending on the hle of this Court. No costs.

¶40

Misccllaneous pr--titions, i[ any pending in thrs writ petition shall st:rnrl r'1oscd.

¶41

SD/. A.SRINIVASA REDDY ISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶42