Allowed

Bodige Savitri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Feb 2024WP/3142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Dharani application for mutation and e-pattadar passbook. The Court held that the respondent's order was illegal for lacking reasons and violating principles of natural justice, setting it aside and directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The rejection order was set aside and respondents directed to reconsider the application for mutation and e-pattadar passbook by recording reasons and issuing notice within two months.

Bodige Savitri Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

H GH CJURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WR]T PETITION NO: 3142 oF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bodige Savitri, Wo Late Yadaiah, Aged 64 years, Occ ; Agriculture, R/o.H.No.,l'15lA, Parvathapuram Village, Medipalli Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

ANO

¶11

'1 . The State of Telanlana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderdbad,

¶12

The Chief Commis5ioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Medchat-Malkajgiri District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medipalli Division, Medchat-Malkajgiri District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Medipalli Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring th€ action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the Rejection Order 10-12-2023 vide Application No.2200991499 and non-considering the online application of the petitioner and non-initiating to mutate the name of the petitioner and non-initiating to issue e-Pattadar Passbook to her land in respect of the land to an extent ot Ac.O.27Y2 gts in Sy.No.153/A/C, 1s3lAlAlUlE, 163lElNE situated at Peerjadiguda Revenue Village, Medipalli Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, without having any valid grounds and without mentioning valid reasons for rejection orders is highly illegal, arbitrary,

¶18

unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation in violation of Articles 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the Rejection Order dated 10-12-2023 vide Application No. 2200991499 issued by the 3'd respondent and consequently direct the 3'd respondent to consider the online application vide No. 22OO991499 of the petitioner and to mutate the name of the petitioner and to issue d-pattadar Passbook on her land to an extent of Ac.O.27 V2 gts in Sy.No.153/AlC. 153lAlAlUlE, 1s3lElAlE situated at Peerjadiguda Revenue Village, Medipalli Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024 l

¶19

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 suspend the operation of the proceedings pursuant the Rejection Order dated 1011212023 vide Application No. 2200991499 issued by the 3d respondent to consider the online application of the petitioner and to mutate the name of the petitioner and to issue e-pattadar passbook to her land to an extent of Ac.O.27 1/2 gts in Sy.No.153/AlC, 153lAlAlUlE, 153lElAlE situated at Peerjadiguda Revenue Village, Medipalli Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitionbr: SRl RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶21

I Counsel for the Responilents : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following I ORDER

¶23

qsw

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.3142 OF 2024

¶26

ORDBR:(ORAL)

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 - The District Collector, MedchalMalakgiri District, in rejecting her Dharani^{applicationbearing} No.2200991499 for mutating her name in revenue records and^for issuance of e-pattadar passbook in respect of her land admeasuring Acs.0-27 lz guntas in Survey Nos.l53lA/C, LS3{NA/IJE^and l53lElNE situated at Peerzadiguda Village, Medipatli^Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has subrnitted that petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land Ac.0-20^{guntas in} Survey No.153lNC, Ac.0-05^guntas in^{Survey No.l53IA/A/U/E} and Ac.0-025 guntas in Survey^{No.153/E/NE, totaladmeasuring} Ac.0-27 /, guntas situated at^{Peerzadiguda Village,Medipalli} Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^District. Originally,^{late Mr. Bodige} Yadaiah S/o. Narasimha,^{husbandof the petitionerwas the pattadar} and possessor of the^{subject land and his name is recordedin the}

¶29

¶30

\ <br>

¶31

revenue records and he was issued pattadar^passbooks and title deeds. Petitioner has succeeded to the subject land after death ol her husband on 27.03.2022. Petitioner being wife and only legal .heir has approached respondent authorities for mutating her name in revenue records and for issuance of e-pattadar^passbook in respect of the subject tand by filing Dharani application bearing No.2200991499. Respondent No.3 by order dated 10.12.2023 has rejected the Dharani application of the petitioner without assigning any reasons. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is passed without assigning any reasons.

¶32

Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents has submitted that impugned order is passed by respondent No.3 having exemined the case of the petitioner and on consideration of material available on record.

¶33

Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, leamed counsel for the petitioner; leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader appearing for respondents, and perused the material on record.

i \

As seen from the impugned order, no reasons have^been assigned by respondent No.3 while rejecting the application of the petitioner and it appears that petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing to present her case. It is a settled law that QuasiJudicial authority dealing with the matter, relating to determination of rights of the parties should specifr reasons for aniving^{at a} decision.

¶40

In view of the above, without entering into the merits of the case, for the sole reason that the impugned order^{was passed in} ls violation of principles of natural^justice, the writ^petition allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order of^respondent No.3. Consequently, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are^{directed to} re-consider the Dharani application. of the^{petitioner bearing} No.2200991499 for mirtating her name in revenue^{records and for} issuance of e-pattadar passbook in respect of her^{landadrneasuring} Acs.0-27 lz guttas in Survey^Nos.153/A/C, 153/NNUIE^and l53lE/A/E situated at Peerzadiguda Village,^{Medipalli Mandal,} Medchat-Matkajgiri Districq by issuing^{notice toall} concemed/interested persons, by^giving opportunity^{of hearing to}

¶41

¶42

all parties, and pass orders by recording reasons, in accordance

¶43

with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of

¶44

receipt ofa copy of this order. No order as to costs

¶45

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,

¶46

if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶47

¶48

SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANTEqGI'TRAR //TRUE COPY// \2', SECTION OFFICER

¶49

¶50

,1, The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department, Secretariat, Secretariat} Buildinqs. State of^{Telangana at Hyderabad.}

¶51

1. ttre Ch'iei Commissioneiof^{LandAdministration, TelanganaState,} Hvderabad.

¶52

3 t6e District Collector,^{Medchal-Malkajgiri, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict'} - 4 fne nevenue Divisional^{Officer,MedifalliDivision, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.} 5 The Tahsildar, Medipalli^{Mandal, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict.} 6 Two CCs to GP For'Revenue,^{High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad. IOUTIr

¶53

1. O'ne CC to Sii Raiblu^{Bhaskar, Advocate} IOPUCI 8. Two CD Copies

SA GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710212024

ORDER

1 KTT S -ii--
(
/,q
rrl
L) 1 3 tE3 ?il:{ ':: ,.: t!I
"a
)^
nr
a,_ t"

WP.No.3142 of 2024

ALLOWING THE W.P ,

WITHOUT COSTS.

\r
,b

Bodige Savitri v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodige Savitri 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

Police Kamal Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Malkedi Shyamlal Vs State of Telengana

M/s. Sew - Meil and Bhel (Jv), Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

Govu Sravani Vs The State of Telangana

Tholuchukkala Laharika Vs The State of Telangana

Langari Hymavathi Vs The State of Telangana