Disposed

Kheda Narsimha Chary v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024WP/25970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an occupancy rights certificate granted to respondent No.4 over lands for which their own earlier Form-I inam application was still pending before the RDO. Holding that keeping one application pending while deciding a later one was unsustainable, the Court set aside the ORC and remitted both applications to the RDO for fresh adjudication after hearing all parties, directing

What did the court decide?

Impugned ORC dated 02.09.2024 set aside; parties relegated to RDO for fresh disposal of both applications after hearing, with status quo maintained.

Kheda Narsimha Chary Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2 s970 0F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Kheda Narsimha Clqry, S/o late Sri Krishnama Chary, (paternal Grandson of late Sri Kheda Srinivasa Chary), Aged g3 yeari, Hindu, Occ.Oovt. [1ql-oye.eJnefa)/..Agricutture,^{R/d' Agr:aharam poflapailyviii;g; 5094-Oii:} RaJapur-Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶9

2 Kheda Srinivasa Chakravarthy, S/o. Kheda Narsimha Chary, Aged 54 years, H.indu,. Occ.Service, R/o .Agraharam poflapally vittageisOSiO8, Ralapui Mandal, Mahabubnagar DistriCt.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue

¶13

^^{p.eRartment, G_overnmentof Telangana, Secretariat,Hfderabad- SOOO22.} 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO;, Mahabubnagar District, T.S. Mahabubnagar'_Sogoo1 ,

¶14

e ]p fa-ngit!arlMRO, Rajapur Mandat, Rajapur-509202, Mahabubnagar District, T.S.

¶15

K.Krishna Sarma, S/o. late K.Anantha Charvulu.

¶16

K.Lakshmi Narsimha, S/o. late K.Anantha Charvulu

¶17

K.R.Gopala Simha, S/o late K Anantha Cniryrfl, Oi'eO per LRs, R-7 to R-10 herein who are not mentioned in Cause Tifle-of the ORb procebdings, Ort^- mentioned in the at last para of page 3 of the ORC procebdings.

¶18

K.Hemalatha, w/o late Dr.K.R.cbpeta Simha

¶19

K.Sarat Chandva Simha, S/o late Dr.K.R.Gopala Simha

¶20

K.Hemanth Simha, S/o late Dr.K.R.Gooala Simha

¶21

10.K.Jayanth Simha, S/o tate Dr.K.R.Gopbta Simha

¶22

1'1. K Vyjayanthi, D/o late K.Anantha Chdryutu,

¶23

K.V aradaraja Kantheeravan, Sio late K.Anantha Charyulu

¶24

All the ResponqeJ'ls:4, 5 and 7 to 12 arc No Agraharam poflapally Village, Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar Diskict.

¶25

Laxmaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶26

M.Ramulu, s/o Not known to'petitioners,

¶27

Errabolla Masaiah, s/o Not kriown to petitioners,

¶28

'16. Errolla Sailu, s/o Not known to petitiohers,

¶29

'!J. $.angarlpela Raju, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶30

Medipally Yadaiah, s/o Not known to betitioners.

¶31

'19. Medipally Guruvaiah, s/o Not known tb petitioners,

¶32

Mirra Srinu, s/o Not known to petitioneri,

¶33

21 Errolla lsthari, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶34

22.Errolla Srinu, S/o Not known to ietitioners,

¶35

Errolla Mangamma, d/o Not known to petitioners, 24.Errolla Ramesh, s/o Not known to petiiioners, 25. Errolla Yadaiah, s/o Not known to ietitioners, 26. Errolla Anil, s/o Not known to petitioners, 2T.Errolla Kishtamma, d/o Not known to petitioners,

¶36

Errolla Anjaiah, s/o Not known to petiiioners, 29. Errolla Yadaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners.

¶37

Kavali Narsimulu, s/o Not known to petitioneis, 3'1. Golla Mallaiah, s/o Not known to peiitioners, -3J^{\4.anga!i Anthamma, d/o Not knownto petitioners,} 33. Ctmkali Venkataiah, s/o Not known to letitioners, 34. Md. Salim, s/o Not known to petitionerS, Q!^{l)laln! Sanjeeva Reddy, s/o Nbt knownto petitioners,} 36.Alonipalli L]ngamma, d/o Not known to pdtitioners, 3T.Alonipally Balaswamy, s/o Not known t6 petitioners,

¶38

Karrolla Prabhakar, s/o Not known to petitioners

¶39

Kummari Yadaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners

¶40

Errolla Chennaiah, s/o Not known to betitioners.

¶41

4l.Meedepally Kishtaiah, s/o Not knownto petitioners,

¶42

42.Alonipally Raju, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶43

43.Alonipally Channaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶44

Alonipally Poshanna, s/o Not known to fetitioners, ,

¶45

45.Alonipally Shanthaiah, s/o Not known td petitioners,

¶46

Kavali Raju, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶47

All.the Resp_onderrt.Nos.13 to 46 herein are Rl/o. Agraharam poflapally Village-509408, Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnaoar Dfstrict (Respondent Nos.13 to 46 are not necessary iarties in the Writ petition)

¶48

The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar-509001 .

¶49

(RR 47 is impleaded as per Court Order dt: 17t12t2024 in lA.No.08/2024)

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent-2 herein in considering the long pending Form-1 lnam Application case No.l(9557t2012, dated 22-12-2012 as filed by the petitioners herein while arbitrarily entertaining the Mutation Application, dated 04-10-2023 as filed by the 4th Respondent treating the same as lnam Application No.l(7577l2023 though the same was not filed in Form-l as mandated by law and granting occupancy Rights certificate (oRC) vide lmpugned oRC Proceedings, dated 02-09-2024 in favour of the 4th respondent in absence of Form-l application besides unjustly not considering the club petition, dated 17-082024, Survey Addition Petition, dated 17-08-2 024 as filed by petitioners, not considering to club the lnam Application of petitioners, dated 22-12-2012 and

¶52

Mutation Application of R-4, dated 04-10-2023, Ktlss7t2o12 and Kt75z7t2o23 tor their common disposal and also without considering the written Arguments, dated 24-08-2024, without taking into consideration of proceedings of Land Reforms Tribunal, Mahabubnagar, vide Proceedings No.R Dis C.C.No.S/1 196/75, declaring Sri late K.Krishnama Chary as the holder of the subject properties acco,rding to which the petitioners are the lnamdars, and granting ORC in favour of the Respondent-4 in violation of all such evidences and serious objections as raised by the petitioners as well as the Respondents-7 to 10 herein, as illegal, grossly arbitrary, violative of Articles 14,15,16,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia besides also being grossly violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Equity and Conscience besides also not giving due opportunity to the petitioners herein deliberately and arbitrarily ignoring their much earlier filed lnam Application No.K957712012, dated 22-12-2012 and consequently .set aside the impugned ORC Proceedings made in lnam Case No.1(757712023 by R-2 while directing R- 2/RDO, Mahabubnagar, to adjudicate the lnam Application of the petitioners and the Mutation Application of R-4 afresh by clubbing them together and duly considering all the documents filed in them and by duly considering the objections as raised by the petitioners herein and other objections as raised by Respondents7 to 10 herein in accordance with law.

¶53

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶54

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned ORC proceedings, dated 02-09-2024 as issued by R-2 in lnam Application No.W7 57712023 restraining the Respondent No.3 from issuing Pattadar Passbooks in consequence of impugned ORC proceedings and restraining such all other acts in consequence thereof, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶55

lA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶56

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 receive additional documents in the above WP No.25970 of 2024, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶57

lA NO: 4 OF 2024

¶58

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 official respondents-1 to 3 to recall the Pattadar Passbooks and 18 ROR arbitrarily issued by Respondent-3 in favour of the Respondenl4 in respect of land property in Sy.Nos.32, 33, 34, 35 and 37 to the extent of Ac g-36Gts., situated in Agraharam Potlapally village, Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, by unlawfully implementing the lmpugned ORC Proceedings, dated 02-09'2024 as made in lnam Application No. K/757712023 by Respondent-2 herein, white the suspension of the same was in force vide lnterim Suspension Orders, dated 2409-2024 as passed by this Hon'ble Court in above WP No.25970, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶59

lA NO: 6 OF 2024

¶60

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-2 to 4 to produce the copy of Declaration as filed by the father of R-4, late K.Anantha Charyulu under Section 8 of the AP Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holding) Act, 1973, duly declaring the list of agricultural land holdings held by him and his family members including R-4 herein and consequently issued Orders of Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer (L.R.) vide Proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), Mahabubnagar, under Section 9 or the said same Act declaring whether they have any excess land holdings and confining their holdings for which they do have corresponding reveriue records like pahanis, for grant of ORC by R-2, for the ORC proceedings to be fair and genuine, pending disposal of the writ petition.

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

Between:

K.Krishna Sarma, S/o.. late K.Anantha Charyulu, aged about 70 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Agraharam Potlapally Vitlage, Rajpur Mandal, ltrlahabubnagar District

¶65

...PETITIONER/4th RESPONDENT AND

¶66

Kheda Narsimha Chary, S/o late Sri Krishnama Chary, (Paternal Grandson of late Sri Kheda Srinivasa Chary), Aged 83 yeari, Hindu, Occ.Govt. !mployee(Retd)/^{Agriculture,R/o Agraharam Potlapallyvillage-S09408,} Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶67

Kheda Srinivasa Chakravarthy, S/o. Kheda Narsimha Chary, Aged 54 Years, Hindu, Occ.Service, Rl/o Agraharam Potlapally village-509408, Rajapur Mandal'MahabubnagarDistrict

¶68

...RESpoNDENTS,*R'rpETITroNERS

¶69

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue

¶70

Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat,, Hyderabad - 500022.

¶71

The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Mahabubnagar District, T.S. Mahabubnagar-509001 ,

¶72

The TahsildariMRO, Rajapur Mandal, Rajapur-509202, Mahabubnagar District, T.S.

¶73

K.Lakshmi Narsimha, S/o. late K.Anantha Charyulu,

¶74

K.R.Gopala Simha, S/o late K.Anantha Charyulu, died per LRs, R-7 to R-10 herein who are not mentioned in Cause Title of the ORC proceedings, but mentioned in the at last para of page 3 of the ORC Proceedings.

¶75

B. K.Hemalatha, Wo late Dr.K.R.Gopala Simha

¶76

K.Sarat Chandra Simha, S/o late Dr.K.R.Gopala Simha

¶77

K.Hemanth Simha, S/o late Dr.K.R.Gopala Simha

¶78

K.Vyjayanthi, D/o late K.Anantha Charyulu,

¶79

1 2. K.V ar adar aja Kantheeravan, S/o late K.Anantha Charyulu

¶80

All the Respondents-4, 5 and 7 to 12 are No Agraharam Potlapally Village, Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶81

1 3. Laxmaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶82

M.Ramulu, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶83

Errabolla Masaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶84

Errolla Sailu, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶85

Rangampeta Raju, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶86

Medipally Yadaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶87

Medipally Guruvaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶88

Mirra Srinu, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶89

21 .Enolla lsthari, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶90

22.Errolla Srinu, S/o Not known to petitioners,

¶91

Errolla Mangamma, dio Not known to petitioners,

¶92

24.Errolla Ramesh, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶93

Errolla Yadaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶94

Errolla Anil, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶95

2T.Errolla Kishtamma, d/o Not known to petitioners,

¶96

Errolla Anjaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶97

Errolla Yadaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶98

Kavali Narsimulu, s/o Not known to petitioners,

¶99

JI .9olla Mallaiah. s/o Not known to petitioners. 32 . Mangatt.Anthampg, d/o Not known to petitioners. JJ u,naKalt venkataiah, s/o Not known to fietitioners, 34. lyo.^{yirrm.,s/o Notknown to petitioneri,} 35.. Natnl SanJeeva Reddy, s/o Nbt known to petitioners 36..Atontpalt L_lngamma, d/o Not known to pdtitioners 37. Arontp€ y Bataswamy, s/o Not known t6 petitioneis, 38. S?l!_otli,^{Pr.abhakar,s7o Not known to petitibnels- -'} 39. llllll1l^{yadaiahs/o Not known to petitioners} 40.trrrola unennaiah, s/o Not known to fetitioners. 41 . Meedepatty Kishtaiah, slo r.roir<nor,in"t6;;iii;;r., 42. Alonipally Raju, s/o Not known to petitioriers.^{- '-'-'} 43.Aronrpa y Channaiah, s/o Not known to petitioners. 44.Arontpaly^poshanna, s/o Not known to detitioners.' 45.Alonipally. Shanthaia h, s/o t tot Xnown lci' J;iiil;;L 46. Kavali Raju, s/o Not known to petitioneisi-

¶100

v-!t;s;-50s?ij8--i;jrp* All.the Respondent Nos.13 to irLnaar, 46 herein Mahabubnasar are R/o. Aqrahidi.tri&1"' Potlapallv (Respondent Nos.7 t6 46 are not n"cessary pirti". in'ii," Writ petitioner)

¶101

...RESPONDENTS

¶102

Petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumdtances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 24.0g.2024 passed in wp No No. 25g70 0f 2024 in the interest of Justice.

¶103

Counsel for the petitioners: SRt B.SREE RAMA KRISHNA !::::"!^{for the Respondent Nos.1To 3 & ai: ACp'ron} neveruUe r-OUNSEI IOr thE RESPONdENT NO.4: SRI VENKATESWARLU GUMMADAVELLY ::T::!for^{the Respondent Nos.7 ro 10 C iziSnix.v.n.pRASAD} uounser ror the Respondent No.11: sRr K.L.N.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counset for the Respondent Nos.S, 6 & ltio A;:-

¶104

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶105

¶106

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶107

WRIT PETITION NO. 25970 0F 2024

¶108

ORDER:

¶109

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

¶110

".....to declare the inoction of respond"ent No.2 herein in consideing the long pending Form- 1 Inam Application Case No.K/9557/2012, dated 22.12.2012 as filed by the petittoners herein uLhile arbitrorily entertoining th,e Mutation Application, dated 04.10.2023 as filed by the respondent No.4 treating the same as Inam Application No.K/7577/2023 though tlte same was not filed in Form-I as mandated bg tau_' and granting Ocanpancg Rights Certificate (ORC) uide impugned_ ORC Proceedings, dated 02.O9.2024 in fauour of the respondent No.4 in absence of Form-l application besides unjustlg not consideing the Club Petition, dated 17.08.2024, Surueg Ad_dition petition, dated 17.08.2O24 as fled by petitioners, not consideing to club the Inam Application of petittoners, dated 22.12.2012 and Mutation Application of R-4, dated 04.j0.2023, K/9557/2012 and K7577/ 2023 for their common di.sposal and also without consideing the Wrttten Arguments, dated 24.08.2024, utithout taking into consideration of Proceedings of Land, Reform"s Tribunal, Mahabubnagar, uide Proceedings /[o. R Dis C.C.No.S/ 1 196/ 75, declaing Si Late K.Krishnama Chory as the holder of the subject properties according to ttttich the petttioners are the Inamdars, and granting ORC in fauour of the respondent No.4 in uiolation of all such euidences and seious objections as raised bg the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.7 to lO herein, as illegal, orbitrary and uiolatiue of Principles of Naturat Justice, Equity and Con-sctence".

¶111

It is stated that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac. 11.06 guntas in Sy.Nos.32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ar,d 38 situated at Agraharam potlapally village,

¶112

¶113

i I

¶114

Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. It is further stated that after abolition of the Inams, as the petitioners are entitled for grant of Occupanc.y Rights Certilicate over the subject lands, they have submitted an application in the prescribed format of Form I uide Inam Case No.K/9SSZ /2012 dated 22.t2.2}t2. It is further stated that pending examination of the application submitted by the petitioners in the year 2Ol2 as per the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short "the Act,), respondent No.2 without examining the claims put forth Uy ifr. petitioners, has entertained the mutation/ ORC application submitted by the respondent No.4 uide apprication No.K/zszz /2023 and issued Occupancy Rights Certificate in his favour.

¶115

The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the petitioners made an application in the year 2Ol2 for grant of ORC on the very same subject lands, respondent No.2 rvithout issuing any notice to the petitioners, whose ORC application in respect of the very same rand is pending for consideration, has considered the application submitted by respondent No.4. It is arso stated that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property as on the crucial date i.e., O 1 . I I . 1923, as such, they are entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate

\ {

I I

It is seen from the record that the petitioners have made an application prior to the application made by respondent No.4 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate over the subject land and' since both the applications are pending before him, respondent No.2 would have taken into consideration of both the applications while granting Occupancy Rights Certificate over the subject lands. Keeping pending of the application submitted by the^petitioners, entertaining the application submitted by^{respondentNo.4on the} very same subject land is not sustainabie as per the^{provisions of} the Act and the Rules made there under.

¶121

Therefore, this Court, without expressing any^{opinion on the} rights and entitlement of the parties to the lis for^{grant of} I O..,-,o..rcy Rights Certificate, deems it appropriate to^{dispose of} I the writ petition by setting aside the impugned^{orderuide Inam} Case No.K./7577 12023 dated 02.09.2024^{grantiog Occupancy} Rights Certificate in favour of respondent No.4 and relegating the parties to agitate their rights before respondent No.2 in^pending application No.Kl9557 /2O12 dated^22.12.2012 and^{also the} application submitted by the respondent No.4.^Further, respondent No.2 is directed to^pass a^{reasonedorderafter affording} an opportunity of^{personal hearing} to^{both parties by issuing} notice to all the interested/ affected^{personsover the subject lands}

¶122

¶123

and communicate the same thereon to the parties within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such time, srofus quo existing as on today over the su'bject lands shall be maintained in all respects.

¶124

With the above said directions, the u,rit petition 1S disposed of.

¶125

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶126

SD/. A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

The Princioal Secretarv, Revenue Department. Government ot Telanoana ^^{secretariai,Hyderabarl,'stai6 oi rerifiiiij,]'rioib)z} 2 The Reven ue btvisio n a i .oiti;; i i i Do):M;,ab"u"b"# g a r_s oe00 1, -^{Mahabubnagar District. T.S.}

¶132

. Ii:?,"k^;:|$arrrr,l^{Ro, nilapurMandat, Rajapur_50e202,Mahabubnasar} 4. The District Coilector MgIip.r.Ulqgm District, Mahabubnagar_50900 1 . u 5. one cc to sRt B sRFF_RAMA kRjsniin, Xt,ili8ife topuC] lyo""?,"'., l" ?S.ir? n e Ve ruu r, n i!il'ilt'.ii;;ffid taie-irer a ns a n a,a t 7 One cc to sRt K i N RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, Advocare topucl I 9n"^{cC to sRt r<.v n Cnasno,} &r*;i;-r"oFrjii" ?, ff : 3 3 t"; ". - KArE swA R L [,' GirM"r\iX bXVl L Ly, Ad vo cate ro p u c]

PS K.

I ,

HIGH GOURT

DATED:1711212024

ORDER

WP.No.25970 of 2024

oR 1 H s T4 t4:
ln
()o
03 JAII 2025
o
*
T a

¶142

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶143

L
<br>

Kheda Narsimha Chary v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kheda Narsimha Chary 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

Kethavath Sriveni Vs The State of Telangana

D.Venkateshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Kommu Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Gunti Lavanya Vs The State of Telangana

K.Shekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kumbalapally Linga Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana