Disposed

Bhanoori Nagaraju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024WP/29416/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order by the Special Tribunal restoring a respondent's name in revenue records. Pending a subsequent civil suit filed by the respondent, the Court directed the Court below to decide the suit on merits within six months and extended the interim status quo for eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to dispose of the civil suit O.S.No.4 of 2022 within six months; extended interim stay order in revenue records for eight weeks.

Bhanoori Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:29416 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bhanoori Nagaraju, S/o. Chandra Shekar, Aged about 30 Years, Occ. Software Engineer, Ryo. 17-1-391Al/76, Saraswathi Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad Rep by his GPA Holder Bhanoori Chandrasheker S/o. Late B. Veershalingam, Aged about 68 Years Occ. Retd Employee, F/o. 1 7-1391 N 17 6, Saraswathi Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Special Tribunal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District Rep by its Member and District Collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medchal Malkajgiri District At Keesara

¶14

The Tahsildar, Muduchintalapally t\Iandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶15

Ravi Raja Babu, S/o. Radha Krishnaiah Aged about 70 Years, Fl/o. Sampanbole Village Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District Presently residing at Flat No. 304, Block No. 15, My Home Jewell, Sy No. 97 Madinaguda Miyapur Hyderabad.

¶16

Yena Srinivas, S/o. Yena Padmaiah, Rl/o. H No. 1-4-8791814, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

K. Satyanarayana, Sio. Late Sri Venkaiah Fl/o. Sampanbole Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶18

Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Late Papi Reddy, Rl/o. Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶19

(Respondent Nos.7 & 8 are not necessary parties)

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aflidavit^filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the

¶22

nature of Writ of Certiorari-to call for records relating .t,).S-T No. 153 / RDO ( K) / t!t vc 458t2o21 ( RDo Keesa, cr"" r'ro.-nii;;;\ir;ii,i;rbd 24.06 2021 onthe rire or the respondent No. 2 and qrrrr,tn" .r-rT't'v

¶23

IA NO :1 oF 2021

¶24

Petition under Section 1Si. CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or tne pltitiJi,'ir"'iiisn court may be preased ro suspend the orders passed by11" r;sp;;;;i'rv".'i r, sr No. 153 / RDo ( K)/ 4s8t2021 ( RDo Keesara case No. iilzistiiits i iated 24.06.2021.

¶25

IA NO: 20F 2021

¶26

Petition under Section 151 .^{CPc praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit fired in support. oJ the p"fiiirii, in;iigh c;ourt mav be preased to receive the order dated^i.22_o?i-;;;;;;o'"iv"i"t" Respondent No.2, vide sr'No 153/RDo(K)/4sBt2o21^-(RDo'ill"r'uru"' irr" No.A2t24s1t2o1g, as additional materiat in W.p.No.294 rctZOZt'----'-

¶27

IA NO: 10 F 2022

¶28

Between:

¶29

Ravi Raja Babu, S/o. Radha_ Krishneiah Aged about .ZO years R/o. HHHlli::i#if:{,,.##LT"{js#ly:flNirid,t"j#nsi_",,

¶30

.,.RESPONDENT NO.s IN WP

¶31

AND

¶32

...PETITIONEFYRESPONDENT

¶33

, Iit{id.{ [**i',HH,?H"$trHH*ffir,fffi

¶34

' 5::,.:,:f, "J#5t:gSiftr[Svenue^{Department' represented bv} its^principar

¶35

Re p b v its M e m b e r a n d

¶36

' Iili,.:PlJfi LI[?l[,?i a Yr?f [,il#,6ills;i rr.itrict

¶37

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medchal Malkajgiri District At Keesara

¶38

The Tahsildar, Muduchintalapally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶39

t I;['SrrTHYas,^{s/o' Yena Padmaiah, Ri,/o. H No.1-4-8tetBt4,} Gandhi Nasar,

¶40

K- Satyanarayana, S/o. L srram6erpet-fu1ffi

¶41

"iil".-#f;^{,:'ilYi*:EFBY.;.P,,o,"boreVirrase,}

¶42

¶43

B Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Late Papi Reddv, Fyo Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal Malkaig-iri District.

¶44

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER

¶45

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 vacate the stay order from all further proceedings and dismiss the above writ with COSTS

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. GADDAM SRINIVAS

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SMT A.V.S.LAXMI

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent NOs.6 to 8: --

¶50

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶51

l i ..1

¶52

1'\y1

¶53

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITIONNo.29416 0F 2027

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

This w,rit petition has been fited seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call lor the records relating to ST.No. 153/RDO(K)/ 458 / 2O2 I dated.,24.06.2O2 1 and to quash the same.

¶56

The petitioner clarms to be the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.l.2l,O g-untas in Survey No.85, Ac.O.19 guntas in Survey No.Bg, Ac 0.1O guntas in Survey No.7g a;rd Ac.O.22 guntas in Survey No.gg, totally admeasuring Ac.2.31 guntas, situated at Sampanbole viilage, Gaggamguda Grampa,chayat, Shameerpet Maadal, Med.hal_ Malkajgiri Districl., having purchased the same by way of registered sale deed vide document No. I2O of 120 13 dated 18.01.2013 from respondent No.6. It is stated that his name has been incorporated in the revenue records arrd pattadar pass books and title deeds have also been issued in his far.our in respect of the sub-iect property. It is further stated that when disputes arose with regard to the snt1igs made in the reve,ue records and subsequent correctlon of the same, respondr:nt No.5, claiming to irave purchased the land admeasuring

¶57

:1,

¶58

CVBR, J wp_294L6 _2027

¶59

Ac.0.29 gutnas in Survey No.7B, has filed an Appeal on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 197¹ (for short "the ROR Act, l97l"l and the Rules made thereunder. Pending the said appeal, ROR Act, 1971 has been repealed^and replaced by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar^Pass Books Act, 2020 whereby all the pending cases on^{the file of} various revenue authorities have been transferred^under Section 16 of the Act to the Special Tribunal^{constitutedunder} the provisions of the ROR Act,^{2O2O; and as such the said} appeal has been transferred to the^{Special Tribunalald} reassigned ST.No.153/RDO(K)/458 l2O2l.^{The grievance of the} petitioner is that after contest, the^{Tribunal vide order dated} 24.06.2027 disposed of^the said^{appeal by directing that the} name of respondent^{No.S be restored in the revenue records} against Survey No.78^{for an extent of Ac.O.29 gutnas.}

¶60

Learned Senior^{Counsel appearing for respondentNo.5} submits that in^{fact respondent No.5 is the absolute owner and} possessor of the subject^{property and the Special Tribunalhas} rightly passed the^{impugned order,by examiningthe matter in}

¶61

¶62

CVBR, J Wp_2941,6 2021.

¶63

I I

¶64

proper perspective and as such the impugned^{c,rderpassedby} the Special Tribunal does not warrant any interferencc of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inrlia.

¶65

At this stage, learned counsel for the parties subrrrits that pending adjudication of the writ petition, the contesting respondent i.e., respondent No.S herein has^irLstitutecl a suit vide O.S.No.4 of 2022 on the file of Additional Junior^Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at At|rveli,^seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner and his vendors ald consequential p,e55g5sion; and the said suit is pending for trial

¶66

Since it is stated that a comprehensive suit h:rs been instituted by the contesting respondent in respec:t of the subject properties vide O.S.No.4 of 2022 on the file of ActditionaI Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Ath,,,eli, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the a \ impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal, dr:ems it appropriate to dispose of the rnrrit petition by directing the Court below to dispose of the said suit on its own merits,

¶67

¶68

CVBR, J wp_294L6 2021.

¶69

uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court in this order, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the petitioner herein shall cooperate with the Court below for the disposal of the said suit. Further, it is left open to the parties to agitate their grievances by liling appropriate application in the said suit, if they so choose. It is also directed that the interim order of status quo granted earlier by this court, with regard to the entries in the revenue records, in respect of the subject property, shall remain in force for a period of eight weeks from today.

¶70

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶71

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶72

pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶73

SD/. A.SRIN IVASA REDDY ) ASSIS //TRUE COPY// T REGISTRAR /

¶74

To, 1 2 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 KKS BSR

FFICER tfl

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411112024

ORDER

WP.No.29416 ot 2021

./z5i iAt tr cr.'
(((
I c
i z
L) 1 : ii6 2025
i
* *
l) ':SPAt C

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS c)tN >\ av l. l\

Bhanoori Nagaraju v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanoori Nagaraju 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallem Niranjan Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Nagula Anand Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd Vs The State of Telengana

Gandi Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Bhanoori Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana

Gujjula Surender Reddy Vs Vejju Bhaskara Laxmi Narayana Rao Naidu