Dismissed

Y. Prakash Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Nov 2024WP/24421/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition filed to declare the rejection of an application for mutation of ancestral government land as illegal. The court held the rejection was lawful as the land was covered by an existing public road, allowing the creditor to approach the Civil Court if any dispute regarding title exists.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed without costs.

Y. Prakash Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^32s61

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE T^'ENTY^{SECOND DAYOFNOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKARREOOY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:2421OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Y. Prakash Reddy,^{S/o. RamReddy,} {ge^{7Q Ycars' Occ'Agriculture,} R/o. Mokila Mllage, Shankarpally^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of Telangana,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat} Buildings, HYderabad.

¶12

The District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District}

¶13

The Revenue Divisional^{officer, chevellaDivision, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶14

The Tahsildar, Shankarpally^{Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction^{more particularly one in the nature of} Mandamus declaring the^{actbnof respondents more particularly respondent No. 2} rejecting the oriline'Applicatioo^{no. 2300311650,Dated.23n412023ot llre} petitioner,s as successionflegal^{heir of the pattadar Y.RamReddyin revenue} records for the lands^{in sy. No. 6O!AN111 admeasuringan extent of Acr. 0.04grts} situated at lvlokila Mtlage,^{shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddydistrictas illegal'} arbitrary, against^{principlesof natural} iustice,^{fair play, null, voil and in violation of} the provision of RoR^{Act, 2O2Oconsequentlyset asidethe same by direcling the} Respondent no. 2 and 3^{to mutatethe lands in sy. No. 60lAN'll1 admeasuringan} extent of Acr. o.o4^{gts situatedat MokilaVillage, Shankarpally Mandal,Ranga}

¶17

Reddy district in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records and issue new Pattadar Passbook to that effect.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 respondent no.2 and 3 to issue Paftadar Passbook for the land in Sy. No. 6OlAN1l1 admeasuring an extent of Acr. 0.04 gts situated at Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAMULU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKARREDDY} '

¶24

WRIT PETITION^{No.2442L of 2024 .}

¶25

ORDpR:

¶26

This writ petition is filed^{seeking to declare the action of} respondent No.2 in rejecting the petitioner's online^application No.230O311650 dated 23-O4.2023 as successorllegal^{heir of} the pattadar Y. Ram Reddy for mutation in^{revenuerecords for} the land in Survey No.6O/AA/1/1 admeasuring^{Ac'O'O4guntas} situated at Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandal,^RangaReddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and for other^appropriate reliefs.

¶27

It is stated that^{the father of the petitioneroriginally} acquired a total extent of^Ac.2 .O2^{guntas inSurvey} No.60/AA/1/1 from his arcestors and^{subsequentlyout of the} said land, except an extent of Ac.O.O4^{guntas, he sold the} remaining extent of land in favour of third^{partiesand as such} they are continuing in possession of the^{said Ac'0'04 guntas} and the name of the petitioner's father^{has been recordedin Lhe} Dharani portal. It is further stated that^{after the demise of} F)etitioner'sfather,thepetitioneralongwithhisbrother

¶28

¶29

CVBR, J W p_24427 _2024

¶30

submitted application No.23003r 1650 dated 23.04.2023 seeking succession/ mutation in revenue records in respect of the land admeasunng Ac.O.04 guntas in Survel, No.6O/AA/ l/ l. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2, vide impugned order dated 31.03.2024, rejected the said application, u,ithout assigning any valid reasons and rvithout allordino ---..-... A n - orrr-,nrrr rn ,-,,ity of hearing.

¶31

Conside rc'd the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and pcrrr,scd the record.

¶32

A careltrl examination of the impugned order dated 31.O3.2021 ptrssed by respondent No.2 reveals that after taking into consideralion all the entries made in the revenue record.s in respect of rhe subject land and after conducting physical enquiry and also survey, respondent No.2 carne to the conclusion thar the subject land admeasuring Ac.0.O4 guntas is covered in existing road from Mokila to Kondakal Village, which is being used lrom long back and the petitioner is not in possession thereof and as such their request for grant of

¶33

¶34

CVBR, I wp'24421- _2024

¶35

succession in respect^of the^{said landdeservesno consideration} and accordingly rejected^{the said application.}

¶36

In view of the same, this^{Court does not find any illegality} or inhrmity in the impugned^{rejectionorder passed by} respondent No.2. If the^{petitioner is having any grievance} against the said rejection order^{and still he claims any right} over the subject^{property, he is at tiberty to approachthe} competent Civil Court^{by filinga comprehensivesuit'}

¶37

The writ petition is disposed^{of accordingly.}

¶38

As a sequel thereto,^{miscellaneouspetitions, ifany,}

¶39

pending shall stand closed.^{Thereshall be no order as to costs'}

¶40

SD/. L.LAKSHMI^BABU

¶41

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶42

,ITRUE^COPY/I SECTI^{ON OFFICER}

¶43

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary (Reventre) Secretariat Buildings' The State of} ei[:'i1's,$$**ry6;r,p1,,;,8,!ffi"r0,o"* a The Tahsildar,^Shankaq 3 ?,13 33J?"t3J#H','*,ff"ffil"CXIn"i""^{tn" stateor reransana' at} Hvderabad [OUT] 7. Trivo CD^CoPies TJ PSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211112024

ORDER

WP.No.24421 of 2024

51A TE
1$
7
q
o,J 2 [ ttB ?ir25 o
+t
.t
* DEs PA1

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

,{
\b

Y. Prakash Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Prakash Reddy 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

Nallaparaju Gopala Raju Vs State of Telangana

P. Vivekananda Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Bantu Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Devender Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Pallepati Satyanarayana, Vs Sri. Navin Mittal

Pallepati Satyanarayana Vs Sri. Navin Mittal