Allowed

Mateti Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Oct 2024WP/27441/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by an individual owner seeking survey of his land, the High Court directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider a pending F-line application for sub-division expediately within 45 days or pass a reasoned order explaining inaction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to consider the F-line application within 45 working days or pass a reasoned order.

Mateti Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2744't OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

I\zlateti Prasad, S/o Narasimha. Rao,-Age 64 years, Occ ; Bank Employee, Fl/o. 1_353/1 , Anand Rao Nagar, Old Alwal, Secunderbad.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by the principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus duly declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the F-line application vide No. DER022401077868 dated 07.05.2024 for sub-division by conducting the survey of land vide Ac. 8.35 gts in sy.No. 1261A in Ghatkesar village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith consider the F-line application for sub- division duly conducting the Survey of the above mentioned property in the interest of justice.

¶17

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thd High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the F-line application vide No. DER0224O107 7868 dated 07.05.2024 for sub-division by conducting the survey of land vide Ac. 8.35 gts in Sy.No. 1261A in Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,in the interest of^justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.27441 of^2O24

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard Sri P. Rama Sharana^{Sharma, learned} counsel appearing for the^{petitioner and Sri L. Ravinder,} learned Assistant Government^{Pleader forRevenue} appearing for respondents.^{Perusedthe record.}

¶25

Petitioner is claiming^{that he is the absolute owner} and^possessor of open^{plot Nos.52 and 53 in Sy.No.126} I^A admeasuring 591 sq.yds.^{situated at Ghatkesar Village} and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^{District, on the strength} of a registered sale deed^{documentbearing No. 1649 of} 2006 dated 03.02.2006. In^{proof of the same,he has} also filed copy of the said^{sa-ledeed and also Raithu} passbook issued in favour of his^{vendor. He has} submitted F-line application^{vide ID No.TTDER02240} 1077868 dated 07.05 .2024^{w:rl,h respondent No'4 with a} request to conduct survey of^{entire land admeasuring} Ac.8-35 gts., in Sy.No.726lA^{situated at Ghatkesar}

¶26

¶27

Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said P-line application, respondent No.4 did not act upon the same . Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.4, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶28

Whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that though the petitioner is owner of 591 sq.yds., he is askmg to conduct survey of entire land in Sy.No. 126 lA i.e. Ac.8-35 gts., situated at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District. The same is impermissible. However, having received the F-line application along with Rs.295/- fee, respondent No.4 should have considered the same and informed the reasons to the petitioner herein.

¶29

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition 1S disposed of, directing respondent No.4 to consider the F-line application bearing ID No.

¶30

¶31

TTDER0224OIO77868 dated 07.05.2024 submitted bv the petitioner and dispose it of in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of forty five (45) working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If respondent No.4 is not inclined to consider the s4!d online application, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate copy of the said order to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶33

pending in the Writ Petition sha-ll stand closed.

¶34

SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGIST R

,TRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

The Principal Secretary,^{(Revenue) Secretariat,State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad.

¶39

The District Collector,^{Ivledchat-Malkajgiri District.}

¶40

fne Reuenue^{Divisional Officer'Keesara' Medchal-Malkajgiri District'}

¶41

The Tahsildar,^{Ghatkesar, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict'}

¶42

s. r*o c-Ci to GP^{FoR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad lOUTl o oi,"-c-C to s'nt^{p.irnunSHARANAsHARluA,Advocate[oPUC]} 7. Two CD CoPies SA GJP Vk

t I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311012024

ORDER

WP.No.27441 of 2024

L oF I€T
|'
C,v
q ^.9 D
o
tt
t- -ttt
\o
LI r

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶50

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶51

CCP\EA
1o
&.

Mateti Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mateti Prasad 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

Smt.J.Dhanamma @ J. Dhani Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Rukki Bai Vs The State of Telangana

Thalla Lakshmi Bai Vs The State of Telangana

Venkatappa, Vs The State of Telangana

Ibrahim khan Vs The State of Telangana

Dema Krishnaveni Vs The State of Telangana