Disposed

Mohammed Afzal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2024WP/4000/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition filed for arbitrary refusal to consider a representation regarding land mutation, directing the Revenue Officer to consider the petitioners' objection and provide notice before passing orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' representation and provide notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing orders on third party mutation applications.

Mohammed Afzal Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 4000 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Mohammed Afzal, S/o. lVohammed Eesa, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri/o. H.No. 2-9-179, Old Colony, Kaghaz Nagar' Town and Mandal, Komarambheem Asifabad District.

¶9

2 Mohd.Shahbazuddin, S/o. Mohammed Afzal, Aged about 34 Years, Occ. Private Employee, Ryo. H.No. 2-9-179, Old Colony, Kaghaz Nagar Town and Mandal, Komarambheem Asifabad District.

¶10

...PETIT|ONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Komarambheem Asifabad District, At Asifabad.

¶14

The Tahsild at, Kaghaz Nagar Mandal, Komarambheem Asifabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondenls No.2 and 3 in not considering representation dated 09-02-2024 ftled by the petitioners herein in respect of land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy. No. 146i2, Situated at Borigaon Shivar, Kaghaznagar Mandal, Komarambheem Asifabad District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thal in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hrgh Court may be pteased to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated OS-O2-2024 filed by the petitioners herein in respect of land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy. No. 146/2, Situated at Borigaon Shivar, Kaghaznagar t\4andal, Komarambheem Asifabad District pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.YADU KRISHNA SAINATH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SOMU SRINIVAS REDDY, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I i Ii ! 1 1 ! !

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.4OOO of 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri V.Yadu Krishna^{Sainath, learned counselfor} the petitioners and Sri Somu^{Srinivas Reddy,learned Assistant} Government Pleader^{for Revenueappearing for the respondents'}

¶26

According to the^{petitioners, father of petitionerNo.1, late} Sri Eesa Mohammed,^{was the absolute ownerand possessorof} Iand admeasuring Acs.2.00^{irrSy.No.146/2 situatedat} Borigaon Shivar, Kag,haztagar^{Mandal, Komarambheem,} Asifabad District. In^proof of the^{same, they have filedcopies of} latest passbook and title deed.^{After the demise o[ Sri Desa} Mohammed, the^{petitionershavesucceededthe saidproperty.} Respondent No-3 is trying to^{mutate the names of thirdparties} in respect of the said property.^{Therefore, theyhave submitted} written representation, dated⁰⁹ 'O2.2O24 to^{respondentNo.3} with a request not to entertain any^{application submitted by} third parties seeking mutation of the^{said property.Despite} receivrng and acknowledging the said^{objection,/ repre se ntation,} respondent No.3 is not considering^{the same.Therefore,the} present Wrtt Petition.

¶27

¶28

,lt

¶29

This Court uide^{order, dated15 'O2 '2024directed} respondent^{Nos.2 and} 3 to consider^the objection/^{representationof the petitioirersdatedOg 'O2'2O24'}

¶30

tn the^{light of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of} directing respondent^{No 3} to consider the objection/representation,^{d'ated 09 'O2 2O24submitted by the} petitioners and while^{considering the application' if any' frled by} third parties^{seekingmutationin respectof the saidproperty} and pass appropriate^{ordersin accordancewith law by putting} the petitioners^{on notice and affording them an opportunity of} hearing. There^{shall be no order as to costs'}

¶31

As a sequel^{thereto,miscellaneouspetitions ifany'}

¶32

pending in this^{WritPetitionshall stand closed'}

¶33

SD/- T.^VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT^R ISTRAR

/TTRUE^COPY//

SECTION FFICER

1 ii.liliisFi!,il"."li?aiiqi:ffi tn:1ffi +:e:'.til,[:*fl+':',:1-"'o:n'"' 2 3 4 5 lf iwo itlflmti'fi1'#n'}Ht#li1#:H,31fl:::::":::-CCs to^{GP for Revenut} Hvderabad [OUTI b Two CD CoPies KJ. GJP w

HIGH COURT

OATED:O110412O24

ORDER

WP.No.4000 of 2024

() 3 THE 5 t4 14.
(
o (1(
i 3 luN 2024
A
( -<br>-=. (lflr )i

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶44

n(ot*^ w

¶45

sfdr-\

Mohammed Afzal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Afzal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadari Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Vasavi Old Age Home Charitable Trust, Vs The State of Telangana

Ponala Kankaiah Vs the State of Telangana

Aenkepally Premkumar Vs The State of Telangana

Ananthula Bharathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Chitikeri Chennaiah Vs The State of Telangana