Disposed

M. Jalda Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2024WP/2722/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner complained of inaction by revenue authorities in conducting a land survey. The court directed the Tahsildar to process the application and conduct the survey within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 4 directed to conduct survey and demarcation within 45 days from the receipt of a copy of this order.

M. Jalda Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 2722 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Jalda^ReddY, S/o. Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 83 Years, Occ Agriculture,^{Rl/ o.} Srinagar Village, A/aheshwaram lr4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'I . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶12

District Collector,^{Ranga ReddyDistrictAt Kongarakalan.}

¶13

Revenue^{Divisional Officer, Kandukuru Division, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶14

Tahsildar,^{Maheshwaramtr,4andal, Kandukuru Division, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under^{Article226 of lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ of^lVandamus or^{any other appropriate writ order or} direction declaring^{the inactionof the Respondents 3 and 4 in conductingsurvey} and demarcating^{Survey No. 171, Srinagar Village. MaheshwaramMandal,} Kandukuru Division,^{Ranga Reddy District pursuantto the application of the} Petitioner in^{ApplicationNo. DER022300976643 with Transaction lD} TTDER022300976643^{dated 12. 09. 2023 as arbitrary, illegal and amountingto} dereliction of duty and^{consequently directthe Respondent No. 3 and 4 to conduct} survey and demarcate^{Survey No. 171, SrinagarVillage,MaheshwaramMandal,} Kandukuru Division,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 oF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct}

¶19

the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to conduct survey and demarcate Survey No 171, of Srinagar Village, Maheshwaram l,4andal, Kandukuru Division, Ranga Reddy District^pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the^Petitioner: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.2722 OF 2024

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ^petition is filed aggrieved by^inaction of^respondent Nos.3 and 4 in conducting survey and^{demarcation of the land} admeasurlng Acs.2-06 Gts in Survey^{No.171lA1/1of SrinagarVillage,} Maheshwaram Mandal, Kandukuri^{Division, Ranga Reddy District,} pursuant to F-line application No.DER022300976643 with^Transaction |D.No.TTDERO223OO976643 dated^{12.08.2023submittedby the} petitioner, as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the^petitioner and^{learned Assistant} Government Pleader for Revenue,^{and perusedthe materialavailable} on record.

¶28

The petitioner claims to be the absolute^{owner and possessor of} the land admeasuring Acs.2-06 Gts^{in Survey No.171lA1/1 of Srinagar} Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Kandukuri^{Division,Ranga Reddy} District. He intended to^get his land^{surveyed and submittedF-line} application No. DER022300976643 dated^{12.O8.2023before} respondent No.4 by^{paying requisite} fees.^{Thereafter,the application} was processed and survey notice in File^{No. F/523/2023 dated} 13.09.2023 was issued^proposing to conduct survey^{on 23.09.2023.}

¶29

lt is submitted by the learned counsel^for the^{petitionerthat on}

23.09.2023, survey was not conducted for the reasons best known to the authorities. Despite several requests made by the petitioner, respondent No.4 did not conduct survey, as such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue submitted that survey pursuant to the F-line application of the petitioner will be conducted as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to ccnsider F_line application No.DER022300976643 with rransaction lD.No.TTDERo22300976643 daled 12-08.2023 submitted by the petitioner for conducting survey and demarcation of the land admeasuring Acs.2_06 Gts in Survey No.171lA1l1 of Srinagar Viilage, Maheshwaram Mandar, Kandukuri Division, Ranga Reddy District, by issuing notice to the interested/concerned persons in accordance with law, within a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.

¶37

¶38

¶39

SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSIATANT //rRUE coPY//

¶40

NEISTRAR SEcTIoiloFFIcER

¶41

l The Principal secretary, Revenue Department, secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶42

District Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Konqarakalan_

¶43

Revenue Divisional officer,.Kahdukuru Divisioni, Ringa Reddy District.

¶44

Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Kandukuru Ciivisioh, Ranqd Reddv District.

¶45

One CC to Sxr PRAbflAKAk r,trkt, /-\ovocare [.,-r,-] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the S[ate of Tetangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

Two CD Copies

¶47

PSK -*\

l I I I I i

j i I I I i l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510212024

ORDER

WP.No.2722 of 2024

I
1 t{E STArF
q
oo 0 I FEB 202t ()7-
ii

tl
s Fp,T ct\f

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

M. Jalda Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Jalda Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sai Akhil Palamakula Vs the State of Telangana

Nakka Padma Vs The State of Telangana

Sri N.Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telangana

Palla Madhavi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Raheem Vs The State of Telangana

Tecpro Systems Limited Vs Madhucon Projects Limited