Disposed

Bhanoori Nagaraju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024WP/29417/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Special Tribunal's order restoring the respondent's name in revenue records. The Court held that since a comprehensive civil suit was filed by the respondent challenging the petitioner's title, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the lower court to decide the suit expeditiously. S. quoS was left in force.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Court below to dispose of the civil suit filed by the respondent expeditiously; interim stay on revenue entries extended for eight weeks.

Bhanoori Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32e6 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29417^{OF 2021}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bhanoori Nagaraju, S/o. Chandra^{Shekar,_Aged about30 Years, Occ} Software En6inebr, R/o. 17-1-3YNn6,^{SaraswathiNagar,Saidabad'} Hvderabad R6o bv his GPA Holder Bhanoori Chandrasheker^{S/o. LateB.} V6ershalingam, AgeO about 68 Years Occ,^{Retd Employee,R/o.} 17 -1 -391 N n 6, Saratwath i Nagar,^{Saidabad, Hyderabad}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Revenue^{Department, representedby its Principal} Secretary, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶13

The Special Tribunal, Medchal-^{MalkaigiriDistrict Rep by its Memberand} Distric[ Collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri^District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Medchal- Malkajgiri DistrictAt Keesara}

¶15

The Tahsildar, Muduchintalapally^{Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Diskict.}

¶16

Ravi Samrajyam, Wo. Ravi Raja^{BabuAged about 67 Years,R/o.} Samoanbole"Villiqe Shameerpet-Mandal,^{Medchal-MalkajgiriDiskict} Presbntly residing 5t Flat No. 3d4, Block^{No. '15,My HomeJewell, Sy No.97} Madinaguda Miyapur HYderabad.

¶17

Yerra Srinivas, S/o. Yerra Padmaiah,^{R/o. H No- 14-87918,14, GandhiNagar,} Hyderabad.

¶18

K. Satyan aruyana, S/o. Late Sri^{Venkaiah R/o. Sampanbole Village,} Shamec;rpet M'andal, Medchal^{MalkajgiriDistrict.}

¶19

B. Sanieeva Reddy, S/o. Late^{Papi Reddy, R/o. Lalgadi MalakpetVillage'} Shaheerpet Mandal, Medchal^{- MalkajgiriDistrict.}

¶20

( Respondent No.7 and 8 are not necessary^parties )

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{direction more particularlyone in}

¶23

the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to ST No. 400120211a21245212019 dated 25.06.2021 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶25

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 pteased to suspend the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in ST No. 400 12021 I 4212452 t20 1 I d ated 24.06.2021 .

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶27

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 pteased to receive the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.2, ST.No.400/RDO(K)185212021 (RDO Keesara Case No.A2t2452t2019), as additional material in W.P.No.29417 12021.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: M/s. A.V.S.LAXMI

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: M/s. C.KUMAR

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V.^BHASKARREDDY

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.294L7^OF 2O2l

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This writ petition has been filed seeking to^{issuea Writ of} Certiorari to call for the records^relatingto ST.No.40Ol2O21/A212452/2019^{dated 25.06-2021 and to} quash the same.

¶37

The petitioner claims to be the^{absoluteowner and} possessor of agricultural land admeasuring^{Ac. 1.20 guntas in} Survey No.85, Ac.O.19 guntas in^{Survey No.88,Ac-O-10guntas} in Survey No.78 and Ac.O-22^{guntas in SurveyNo.B8,totally} admeasuring Ac.2.31^{guntas, situated at Sampanbolevillage,} Caggamguda Grampanchayat, Shameerpet^{Mandal, Medchal-} Malkajgiri District, having^{purchasedthe same by way of} registered sale deed vide document^{No. l2O of 20 13 dated} 18.O1.2O13 from respondent No.6. It^{is stated that his name} has been incorporated in the revenue^{records and pattadar} pass books and title deeds have also^{been issued in his favour} in respect of the subject property.^{It is further stated that u'hen} disputes arose with regard to the entries^{made in the revenue} records and subsequent correction of^{the same, respondent}

¶38

¶39

CVBR, J W p-2941,7 _2021

¶40

No.S, claiming to have purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 1.09 gutnas and Ac.O.22 guntas in Survey No.gg, has filed an Appeal on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Lald and pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "the ROR Act, 1971") and the Rules made thereunder. Pending the said appeal, ROR Act, 197 I has bcen repealed and replaced by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O 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 consriruted under the provisions of the ROR Act, 2O2O; and as such the said appeal has been transferred to the Special Tribunal and reassigned ST.No.4OO/2O2L /A2/ 2452/2019 The grievance of the petitioner is that after contest, the Tribunal vide order dated 25.06.202 I disposed of the said appeal by directing that the name of resporrdent No.S be restored in the revenue records against Survey No.gg for an extent ol Ac.0.19 gutnas and Ac.O.22 guntas.

¶41

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.s submits thtrt irr lact respondent No.5 is the absolute owner and

¶42

¶43

CVBR, .J WA 29477 2O2I

¶44

possessor of the subject property and the Special Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order, by examining the matter in proper perspective and as such the impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

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

¶46

Since it is stated that a comprehensive suit has been instituted by the contesting respondent in respect of the subject properties vide O.S.No.4 of 2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Athveli, this Court u,ithout expressing any opinion on the merits or dernerits of the impugned order passed by the Special Tribuna-I, deems it

¶47

¶48

CVBR, J w p_294r7 _2027

¶49

appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Court below to clispose of the said suit on its own^merits, uninfluenced by a.ry of the observations made by this^{Court in} this order, as expeditiously as possible^{preferablywithin a} period of six months from the date of receipt of a^copy of^this order. It is further directed that the^{petitioner herein sha-ll} cooperate with the Court belor,r, for^{the disposal of the said suit.} Further, it is left open to the parties to agitate^{their grievances} by filing appropriate application in the^{said suit, if theyso} choose. It is also directed that the^{interim order of stafii.s quo} granted earlier by this Court, with regard to the^{entriesin the} revenue records, in respect ol the^{subject property,shall remain} in force for a period ol eight u,eeks from today.

¶50

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^petitions, if^any,

¶52

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

¶53

SD/- MOHO.^ISMAIL ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,\il, V,s ECTION OFFI^CER

¶54

To,

¶55

1 ThePrincipalsecretary,RevenueDepartment,secretariatHyderabad'State of Telangana.

¶56

¶57

z The Member^{and Districtcollector, special Tribunal, Medchal-Malkajgiri} District. Medchal-^{MalkaigiriDistrict.}

¶58

3 The Revenue^{Divisionalofficer, Medchal - Malkajgiri DistrictAt Keesara}

¶59

¶60

The Tahsildar, Muduchintalapally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri^District.

¶61

One CC to SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

¶63

One CC to M/s. A.V.S.LAXMI, Advocate [OPUCI

¶64

One CC to M/s. C.KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI

¶65

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High^{Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶66

Two CD Copies

BSR PSK @)

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1411112024

ORDER

1ft E S ,4.7
c
t) 2 0 rEB 2025 ,l,j
f
t
(

¶75

WP.No.29417 of 2021

¶76

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶77

WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

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