Disposed

Pentareddy Jayabharath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Feb 2024WP/3987/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking succession (virasath) and mutation of petitioner's name in revenue records for agricultural land inherited from his deceased mother, which authorities had not processed despite representations and an online application. On the Government Pleader's undertaking, the court directed respondents to consider the online application and pass orders in accordance with law within forty

What the court decided

AI extract

Pentareddy Jayabharath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3987 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pentareddy Jayabharath Reddy, S/o. Solomon Reddy, Age 45^years,Occ Agriculture Ri/o- Nimmanapalli (V), Peddapalli^(M), Peddapalli District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The District Collector, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District,

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, Peddapalli^District.

¶14

4 The Tahsildar, Peddapalli Mandal, Peddapalli^District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the^{respondentauthorities} for not granting of Virasath and also not mutating the names of the^petitionerin the revenue records In respect of the agriculture land to an^{extentof Ac-1-38 gts} in Sy.No.84/B situated at Nimmanapalli^(V), Peddapalli^{(M), Peddapalli District, as} illegal arbitra ry, violative of^principles of natural^justice, offend^{Art 14 and 300-Aof} Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the^{respondent authoritiesto grant} Virasath and mutate the name of the^petitioner in the revenue^{recordsin respect} of the agriculture land to an extent of Ac.1-38^gts in Sy.No.84/B^situatedat Nimmanapalli (V), Peddapalli (M), Peddapalli District.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2o22

¶18

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 preased to grant Virasath and mutate the names of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the agriculture rand to an extent of Ac.1-3g gts in sy.No.g4lB situated at Nimmanapalli (V), peddapaili (M). peddapalli District by duly considering the representation daled 18-12-2021 submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt B. ARJUN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

HONOURABLE Szu JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3987 OF 2022

¶25

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not granting virasath (succession) and not mutating his name in the revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.l -38 guntas ln Survey No.84/B situated at Nimmanapalti Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District, as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

Heard Mr. J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents, and perused the material on record

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.l-38 guntas in Survey No.84/B situated at Nimmanapalli Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District, having acquired the land by way of succession from his mother, Smt. Jaya Seethamma. The mother of the petitioner acquired the subject land from her grandfather and her father. She expired on 19.04.2014 leaving

¶29

¶30

behind the petitioner as legal heir. When respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Peddapalli Mandal, tried to interfere with the subject land, petitioner and his brother filed W.P. No.22535 of 2014 which was disposed of on 10. I 2.20 I 8 directing respondents therein not to acquire the subject land without fotlowing due process of law. Further, petitioner has also filed W.P. No.3 1706 of 2015 to declare the inaction of respondents therein in issuing pattadar passbook to the petitioner in respect of the subject land. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30.09.2015 directing respondents therein to consider the application of petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after the death of mother of the petitioner, petitioner has submitted representation to respondent No.4 for succession and mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the subject 1and. Respondent No.4 has issued a memo vide No.B/1360/2015 dated 31.12.2015 stating that in view of the pendency of W.p. No.22535 of 2014, succession of the subject land cannot be granted to the

I I

petitioner. After disposal of the said writ petition on 10.12.2018, petitioner has submitted detailed representation dated 22.03.2019 to respondent No.4 for succession and mutation in respect of the subject land. Despite several representations of the^petitioner, there was no response from the respondent authorities.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that petitioner has submitted online application bearing No.RC2300010400 for granting succession and mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the subject^land. However, there is delay on the part of respondent authoritiesⁱⁿ processing his application, as such, he is constrained to approach this Court

¶38

Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for^Revenuehas submitted that appropriate action will be taken on^{the Dharani} applications ofthe petitioners, in accordance with law

¶39

Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, without going into the merits of the case, the writ^petition is disposed of directing respondent^Nos.2

''lr

to 4 to consider petitioner's online application bearing

¶44

No.RC2300010400 for granting succession and mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of his land admeasuring Acs.l-38 guntas in Survey No.84/B situated at Nimmanapalli Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District, by issuing notice to all concerned/interested persons, and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,

¶46

if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶47

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶52

The District Collector, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District,

¶53

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District.

¶54

The Tahsildar, Peddapalli Mandal, Peddapalli District

¶55

One CC to SRI B. ARJUN, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶57

Two CD Copies. BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10212024

ORDER

WP.No.3987 of 2022

( oR l llE ST4 /€ o.l
f
o
L) 15 rits lwl
l L
*
Pat'. c

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

LO
)-bUl

Pentareddy Jayabharath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pentareddy Jayabharath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gangidi Rajashekar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Pothnak Murali Vs The State of Telangana

Rahamath Suha Vs The State of Telangana

Malothu Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Lingampally Gopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gugulothu Mothiram Vs The State of Telangana