Disposed

Nagati Sudarshan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2024WP/35879/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging the rejection of an E-pattadar passbook application, the High Court of Telangana, without expressing an opinion on the impugned order, directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry following principles of natural justice. The petition is disposed of at the admission stage pending the enquiry outcome.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry by duly following principles of natural justice and hearing the petitioner before passing appropriate orders.

Nagati Sudarshan Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C,V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 35879 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Nagati Sudarshan, S/o. Late Chidambaram, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.H.No.13, 3rd Floor, Huda Complex, Saroomagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

ANO

¶12

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda Division, Nalgonda District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶17

Deshetti Narayana (died),

¶18

Deshetti Sathish, S/o. Late Narayana, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri./o. llapuram Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶19

Deshetti Vittal, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 51^years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. llapuram Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶20

Banavath Jayaram (Died),

¶21

l0.Banavath Vishnu, S/o. Jayaram, Aged about 48^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. llapuram Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶22

1 1 . Banavath Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Jayaram, Aged about 45^years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri/o. llapuram Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶23

l2.Banavath Shankar, Sio. Jayaram, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. llapuram Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶24

'l3.Banavath Rupla, S/o. Jayaram, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. llapuram Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶25

¶26

l4.Banavath Ramulu, S/o. Not Kown, Aoed about R;.itild;'iiir:u",MiryargudaMahdar,*",n31J""il,3in9#.Asricufiure,

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit rireo ttreiewitn, the Hi;h'CJ,rt' .,"v o. pleased to issue an order or direction ,or" p"rti"rrrrry one in the nature of writ of Mandam.us decraring the action of the ResponJ""''rb.e in i..;in;l;;lroln""u Proceedings through vide No.E1lgl sstzozlz-, aied'12ro}r2o24 and rejected the application and issuance of E-pattadar pas;bo;k ;n the rand of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1 .20 Gts in survey No. 62, which is situated at rraprrrm-virrlge, l!iryalguda. Mandar, Nargonda^ District is^'irrejar, aioitrary, unconstitutionar and vioration of Articres 14, 15, 21 and 300-4; constitution of rndia and arso violation of Principres of Naturar Justice and consefuentty direct the Respondent No.3 to set aside the rmpugned eroceeoints vr"de tio.Eilg15itzii{,-'izi"o 1210812024 and to direct the respondent f.fi.e^'io mutate the name of the Petitioner in arr revenue records and issue tn" L-Futt"o passbook to petitioner on his cuttivating rand to an extent of Ac.1 .20 Gts in survey N;. dr, *ni"'i., i, situated at ltapuram Viltage, Miryalguda fflandai NaigonOa District.

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶30

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit fired in support, of the .p"lltio!, t"n" iigt court may be preased set aside the rmpugned proceedings vioe t{o.eilst s siiozz, dated 1210812024 and to direct the Respondent No.3 to mutate the name or'the petitioner in arr revenue records and issue the E-pattadar passbook to petitioner on his curtivating rand to an exent or Ac.1 .20 Gts in survey No. 62, which is situated at ,apurarn Virage, Miryatsuda Mandat, Natsonda Disirict pendins di.po."r "i i;; W;i i;il; '"''"

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI RApOLU BHASKAR

¶32

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 to 14: - _ - -

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR REDDY

¶36

WRIT PETITION No .35879 of2024

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This writ petition is filed with the following reliel-

¶39

"...to i,ssue an order or direction more particttldrlA one in the tafure of Wit o! Mandln!.s dectaring the dction of the Respind.ent No.3 in issuing the Impugned Proceedngs tfuough uide No.El / giSS/ 2022, dated 12_oa.2o24 ond -rejected the applicalion dnd issuance of E,pqttadar passbook on the ktnd of the Petittoner to an extent of Ac. t.2o-Gts in Surueg No.a,: uhich is situated. dt napuram Vitklge, Miryalqldd Ua,adal, Naigonda Oi"tr,irt o illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional in[ uiolation of ArtickT 14, 1i, 21 and 3OO-A of Coratitution of Indio antl also uiotatioi of lrrinciples of Naturql J-usti@ and consequentlg direct the Respondent^-n".5 ti ,.t^-oria" tn" IyOugned Proceedings uide No.El/ g t SS/bOZZ, aatert 12.08.2024 aru1 tu) direct the resg)ndent No.3 to mutate tlrc nane of the petittoner tn all revenue red)rds and i.ssue tl@ D pattadar possZrook lo petittoner on hts aaltiuattng land to an extent of Ac.l.2O Gts in Surueg No.62, uhich is sta)ated at llapuram V lage, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble CourT'mdA deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the co.se"

¶40

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage and in view of the relief sought in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the un-official respondents is dispensed with.

¶41

It is stated that the petitioner has assigned the agriculture land to an extent of Ac.01.20 guntas in survey No.62, situated at Ilapuram Village, Miryalguda IVlandal, Nalgonda District, vide patta certi{icate No.A4 / 1334 / 1987, dared:Nil.05. 19g7 and the revenue authorities mutated his name in all the revenue records and issued 4 pattadafiassbooks and title deeds. It is further stated that when

¶42

¶43

CVBR, J wp_35879 2024

¶44

the Government of Telangana issuing e-pattadar^{passbooksto the} farmers, the petitioner requested the respondent^{authoritiesto} issue e-pattadar passbooks and they took his old^pattadar passbooks and title deed and assured him that they will issue e- pattdar passbooks, but they did not initiated any action. As such, the petitioner, Iiled W.P.No.38080 of 2022 on the file of^{this Court} and this Court disposed of the said writ^{petition directingthe} respondent Nos.3 to 5 therein to consider the online application of the petitioner and directed to issue e-pattadar^passbookto him. It is further stated that as p€r the directions of this Court,^the District Collector after issuing notice to the elfected^partiesand basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar, has passed the impugned order vide proceedings No.El /9L55/2O22, dated 12.08.2024 rejecting the claim of the^petitioner stating^that the petitioner is not entitled for mutation of his name and issuance of aly e-pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

¶45

A careful reading of the impugned order would reveal that the District Collector has directed the Tahsildar to take action against the respondents as per the Telangana Assigned^Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short "the Act, 1977"1 and submit a report.

¶46

CVBR, J wp-358'.79 2024

¶47

I t

¶48

¶49

The grievance of the petitioner is^basing on^{the orderspassed} by the District Collector, the Tahsildar is making^effortsto dispossess the^petitioner from the^{land in possession.}

¶50

The Assistant Government Pleader appearing for^the respondent authorities, on instructions, would submit that^the petitioner is not in possession of the said land and it is an assigned land in favour of the contesting respondents herein,^{as such the} petitioner is not entitled for grant of pattadar passbook under the provisions of the ROR Act,2O2O.

¶51

7 . This Court, without expressing any opinion on the impugned orders, as the said orders only directed the Tahsildar^{to conduct an} enquiry as per the provisions of the Act, 1977,^deemsit appropriate to dispose of the writ^{petition directingthe Tahsildarto} conduct an enquiry as directed by the District^{Collector duly} following the principles of natural^justice and after hearing^the petitioner and taking into consideration of the documents produced by him, pass appropriate orders strictly, in accordance with law.

¶52

With the above observations, this^{Writ Petitionis disposedof'} I No order as to costs.

¶53

".^4

¶54

¶55

CVBR, J wp_35879_2024

¶56

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pendingin}

¶57

this writ petition shall stand^closed.

¶58

SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, The State of Tetangana, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶63

The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda Division, Nalgonda District. 5. The Tahsildar, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl B. Two CD Copies BN BS

I jtI ri -)

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011212024

1 $E SrAr
Y
o 2 4 $!{ ?$6 z
]J
.:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

WP.No.35879 of 2024

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

@c"P'" ry'@

Nagati Sudarshan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagati Sudarshan 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

Akula Laxmi, Vs The State of Telangana

Pattabhirami Reddy Vs State of Telangana and 3others

Mohammed Abdul Rahman Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Thota Kumaraswamy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Sanem Indrasena Goud Vs State of Telangana

Sri.Batchu Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana