Disposed

Smt. Kamini v. Shah v The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Oct 2024WP/24569/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing revenue authorities to decide their Mee-Seva application for deletion of their agricultural land in Kokapet village from the prohibited properties list. The court noted Section 22-A(4) empowers de-notification on application, and directed respondent No.2 to examine the application per law within eight weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Kamini v. Shah Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^{32e6 ]}

¶2

Ar^{HY D E RABAD} H' G H^{c o u Rr ..i} JJ.5,'"1^{al:r,?5 l: 'nl},:#$}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TWENTY NINTHDAY.OFOCTOBER} TWO^{THOU.ANDAND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEC'V' BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT P^{ETITIO N NO:245690F2023}

¶7

Between: Ased^{6 1} vears'^occ ""T"iS.Si#l?l,J; ?!aL^{g:X-tS,':*Y t"rl"'.,'?l'n}

¶8

Shah,^{Aged 38} vears'^{occ Business'}

¶9

, aljlt zly g"t"r*,t,tJJtlX? Ased 42 vears' 42 vears' vears'^Qcc

¶10

Ased 42 vears' 42 vears' vears'^Qcc

¶11

'^{H$."*tgi'n"",.'-';1, g:xislil l,"rt"f1'ff"n}

¶12

,gx!,,;",#lg,"s,i*"+-.;f ,"il'"1035i3i,,?9llsf; 3"?'..',ili'-[?T'-f^?l -B;;i;i; Hirrs, HYderabad

¶13

ffi Hryi#."#;s*t+lq:ffi^{nTffjf,i]iiil:ff}il#r,r,?f

¶14

...PETtTIONER9

¶15

Revenue

¶16

on?. rn" DePartment' state^Governl oi reransana'-Rep -:l ^T:*":l$:lir1l,r?::',:l1i'

¶17

The^{Collector,Ranga Reddy Districl Kongara Kalan Village'lbrahimpatnam}

¶18

' ri,i""a"t' i"langanaSol 510

¶19

The^{RevenueDivision Officer'Raiendranagar' At Raiendranagar'Ranga} ReddY^District

¶20

The^{Tahsilddr-cum-SRO'Gandipet Mandal' At Gandipet'Ranga Reddy} District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTE

¶22

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court mayb€} pleased to^{grant a Writ or Writs' Orderor Direction morein the natureof a Writ qf} Mandamus^{declaringthe inactionon the part of the RespondentsNo 1 to 4 in ngt} considering^{the online applicationmadethrough Mee-Seva on 20. 03 2023' being}

¶23

¶24

registered as Apprication No. 2300012774, to the Respondent No. 2 to rectify the grievance by removing the property of the petitioners viz. a, that Agricurturar rand in Sy' No 101rA, having extent of Ac. 0-2g.6 Gts., situated at Kokapet virage, Gandipgt Mandal (New) (old Rajendranagar Mandal), R. R. District, and all that agriculturar rand admeasuring Ac. 0-29.61 Gts in Survey No. 10.1/A, situated Kokapet vrllage, Gandipet Mandal (New) (Old Ralendranagar Mandal), R. R. District from the prohibitory list, as it is illegal, unconstitution a l, arbi(rary, unlawful, unreasonable, discriminatory and contrary to the principle of enjoyment of comprete and whoresome constrtutionar- Right to property as contained under Articre 300-4 of the constitution of rndia offending the Right to propertr/ as contained in Art 300-4 of the constitution of rndia, in the interest of justice.

¶25

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶26

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 Respondents to dispose of the representation dated 20.3.2023 registered as apprication N0' 2300012774, in respect of a, that Agricurturar rand in sy. No. 101/4, having extent of Ac. 0-29.6 Gts., situated at Kokapet village, Gan(ipe! Mandar (New) (ord Rajendranagar Mandar), R. R. District. and a, that Agricurturar land admeasuring Ac. 0_29.61 Gts in Survey No. .101/A, situated Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandat (New) (Otd Rajendranagar Mandat), R R. District, punOing disposar of the writ petition by way of interim direction in the interest of 1r.ti"".

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI R. A. ACHUTHANAND

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON,BLE S^{RI JUSTICE c.v.BHASKAR} REDDY

¶31

WRIT P^{ETITIONNo.24569ol 2023}

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

' This Writ^{Petition,under Article 226 of tLie Constitutionof} India,^{is filedseeking the followingre lief:}

¶34

n...to gront a wnt or Writs' Order or Direction^{morein the noture} of a Wit^{of Mandamtts declaring tlle inoction on the part of the} Respondents^{Nos .l to 4 in notconstdering the online opplication} mad.ethroughMeeSeuaon2O'032023beingregtsteredas Application^{No' 2300012774 to the Respond'entNo 2 to rectifg} the gieuance^{by remouing the properlAoft-hePetitioners uiz oll} that Agiculturat^{tclnd in Sy No lol/Ahanng ertent of Ac'} 0.2g6Gts.SituatedatKokipetuitlage,GandipetMondal(New) OId Rojendranagor^{Mandal' RRDistict ando:ll that agriculturql} land admectsuing^{Ac 0'2961 Gts in Surueg No 101/A situated} Kokapet uitloge,^{Aanclipet Mand'ol(Netu) OLd Raiendronagar} Mondat,^{RR Distnct} from^{the prohtbitorylist as it islegol'} unconstttutrcftal,^{Lrbrtrary' unlawful'} -ttnreasonab\e' discnmLnatoryand-contraratotteprincipleofenjogmentof comptete^{and uholesomeConstitutionol Rightto l\opertA as} contained,underArticle300AoftheConstitutionoflndia offending^{the Right to Propertg as contained in Art 300 A of the} Constitution^{of India in the interestof justtce ' ' ' "}

¶35

Considered^{the submissionsof the lbarnedcounsel for the}

¶36

respective^{parties and perused the record'}

¶37

The case^{of the petitioners is that they are the owners and} possessors of^{agricultural land admeasuringAc'O-29'6guntas} situated at^{Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandal (New) OId} Rajendranagar^{Mandal,Ranga ReddyDistrict'having purchased} the same^{by virtue ofregisteredsale deeds and their}

¶38

¶39

predecessors-in- ti tle have also purchased the said property through register sale deeds. It is the further case of the petitioners that when the property, which fell to the share of petitioner No.1 is listed in prohibited properties list under the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8, a representation has been submilted duly enclosing the documents seeking to delete/ de-notify from the prohibited list of propeny. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the said application, no action has been taken by the respondents.

¶40

The Sub-section (4) of Section 22-A of the Regisrration Act, 1908 (for short "the Act,,) confers the power on the State Government either suo motu or on an application by any person or for giving effect to the hnai orders of the High Court of Telangana or Supreme court of India to procr:ed to de-notify, either in full or in part, the notirrcation issued under sub section (2) and the Rules made under the provisions of the Act.

¶41

In view of the above submissions and since it is stated that the petitioner has already made an application, dated 20.o3.2023 uide apprication No.23000 r2zr4 for deletion of the subject property from the list of prohibited propertif:s, rhis Court deems it appropriate Lo dispose of this writ petition

¶42

¶43

directing^{respondentNo'2 to examinethe said application} strictly in^{accordance with the provisionsof the Act and taking} into consideration^{of the sale deedsand pass appropriateorders} in accordance^{with law and communicatethe same to petitioner} within a^{period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a} copy of^{this order.}

¶44

6 With the above^{observations,this writ petitionis disposed}

¶45

of. No order^{as to costs}

¶46

Pending miscellaneous^{apptications' if any' shall stand}

¶47

closed.

¶48

SD/.T.^{TIRU MALA DEVI} ASSISTANT^R IS R

¶49

//TRUE^COPY/' SECTION FFICER

¶50

To, 1 The rria-noJ, Collector,^{ieiangana-sO Rang-q t R9!!Y 5 1 0District' Kongara Kalan Village'lbrahimpatnam} 2 One CC^{to SRI R. A ACHUTHANAND'Advocate IOPUC]}

¶51

2 J Two CCs to^{GP for Revenue' High Courtior the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶52

4 Two CD^Copies

MP s BS

HIGH^{COU RT}

DATED:^{2 911Ol2O24}

n 1Hli S14I
o
Y
o
o
? 7 rCIu ?u[
*
I 'l$(l r

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No.24569^{of 2023}

¶59

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶60

@q'8
\ $

Smt. Kamini v. Shah v The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Kamini v. Shah v The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Koneti Pedda Mallappa Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Kethavath Sonamma Vs The State of Telangana