Disposed

Koneti Pedda Mallappa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Oct 2024WP/21485/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the issuance of cancellation proceedings against assigned land was disposed of by directing the District Collector to decide a pending revision appeal within two months, restraining further coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Direct performance of duties by District Collector regarding pending revision appeal and restraint on coercive steps by Revenue Divisional Officer.

Koneti Pedda Mallappa Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21485 oF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Koneti Pedda Mallappa, S/o. Late Narsappa, Aged about 65 yrs, Occ priest and Agriculture, Rl/o. Singaram Village of Narayanpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶9

Konenti Lingamma, W/o Mallappa, Aged about 55 Yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Singaram Village, Narayanpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principle Secretary Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The District Collector, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶14

J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahbubnagar Dist.

¶15

4 The Tahsildar, Narayanpet, Mahbubnagar Dist.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 appropriate orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the act of the Respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings A163212018 dated 0210212019 on the.assigned land to the Petitioner No. 1 and No. 2 admeasuring Ac.5.00 of gairan land in Sy. No. 404/45, and Ac.5.00 in Sy. No.404/47 (gairan) situated at Singaram Village, Narayanpet Mandal and District, total admeasuring acres 10.

¶18

lA NO: 1 oF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 1s1.cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in f"^ 1tt,,9rt^{fited in supportof the p"iition,in"} iign Court may be pteased to drrect the Respondent *o:? ln. 4.not to trt u "ny coercive steps to resume the assigned rand form the custodv of the petitionlrs Jr rano ec.s.oii"r grir#i;ro i^ Sy. No. 4O4l4S. Ac.5.00 in Sy. trto. +b+l+'iig"ir"") -situated^{at SingiramViilage,} Narayanpet Mandar and Distiict, punorng iili"rri';r the revision petition fire No. RevlEl/0003t2019 before tn" n"rponJ"it r.rJi. ""

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI M. VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. Gp FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.21485 of 2()2()

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶28

1..ro rssue appropnate orders more particulnrly one in the nature of WriI oJ Mandonlus declaing the act of the Respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings No.A/632/2018 dated 02/02/2019 on the assigned land to the Petittoner No.l and 2 admeasuring Acs. 5-00 of gairan land in Sy.No.404/45 and Acs.S-Oq in Sg. No. 4O4/ 47 gairan situated at Singaram Village, Noraganpet lllandal and Distict total admEasuing acres 10..."

¶29

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record

¶30

The case of the petitioners is that the Government has assigned Acs.S-OO guntas of gairan land each in Sy.No.404/45 situated in their lavour through proceedings No.B/33 1/94, dated O4.09.1994 and the revenue authorities have also issued pattadar passbooks and mutated their names in all the revenue records. While so, respondent No.3 issued proceedings vide No.A/632120 18, dated O2.O2.2O19 stating that a complaint has been reported before the Tahsildar by the Managing Committee Singaram Beerappa Devalaya Committee of Singaram Viltage, stating that the names of the petitioners are irregularly and

¶31

¶32

¶33

illegally entered into the passbooks as assignees and requested to cancel the assignment pattas granted in their favour under Sections a(1)(a) & (2) of the Telangana Assigned lands (pOT) Act, 1977 (for short "the Act 9 of 1977"1 as amended in 20O7 in the interest of public.

¶34

Sri M. Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.3 is not the competent authorit5r to pass any orders under the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977 as he is not having any jurisdiction to entertain any applications or representations. Learned counsel further submitted that if there are any illegal and irregular assignments made in favour of the petitioners, the competent authority is having power to review assignments under the provisions ofthe Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.

¶35

tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, on instructions, w,ould submit that aggrieved by the proceedings issued by respondent No.3, the petitioners have liled an appeal uide file No.Rev/E1/ OOO3/2019 dated O6.05.2019 under Section a(A)(2) of the Act 9 of 1977 before respondent No.2 and the same is pending for

¶36

¶37

-7

¶38

adjudication and as such the petitioners may be relegated to pursue their remedies before respondent No.2.

¶39

In view of the said submissions and since the petitioners have aiready filed an appeal before respondent No.2, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if respondent No.2 is directed to examine the appeal filed by the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in pursuance of the proceedings, dated O2.O2.2O19 issued by respondent No.3.

¶40

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed

¶41

of. No order as to costs.

¶42

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶43

closed.

¶44

SD/. T. TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGIS R / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To, 'l.ThePrincipleSecretaryRevenue,TheStateofTelangana'Secretariat' Hvderabad.

¶46

i#'Dtfi;i^{Collector'Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar Dist'} 3. iii; F;;;;;^{Driaionat officei, Naravanpel, Mahbubnagar Dist'} +. fn" Tahsildar,^{Narayanpet, Mahbubnagar Dist'} 5. o;; btiii^{5nr rtr ViJA?n'xuHltnnGolUD,Advocate-[oPUC].} 6. i;; dc.i"-cF^{Fon nEveruue,High court for the stateof relangana} touTI

¶47

Two CD^CoPies BN GJP S.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911012024

ORDER

WP.No.21485^{of 2020}

¶52

-i t'. r: i..I
o
).
c i"i
25 il0'/ mf,
J.'"
otspa f il\ ii:
i[.

¶53

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶54

locoQqd

¶55

ffi",

Koneti Pedda Mallappa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koneti Pedda Mallappa 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

P.Jaipal Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Jillella Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Nuthalapati Madhu Vs The State of Telangana

Ziauddin Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Kamini v. Shah Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Kethavath Sonamma Vs The State of Telangana