Allowed

Bedigi Priyanka v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2024WP/490/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of an F-Line application for land demarcation. The Court Directed the Tahsildar to conduct the survey within 45 days and stayed the auction of the adjacent land until completion. The rejection on grounds of partial survey area and lack of neighbor consent was struck down.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to conduct survey and demarcation within 45 days; stay on auction of Respondent No. 4's property pending completion; rejection of unfair grounds for non-consideration of

Bedigi Priyanka Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | 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:490 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bedigi Priyanka, D/o B. Shiva Shankar, Aged 31 Years, Occ. Housemaker, Rlo 4-2-2Q719a, Gumastha Nagar, Tandur, Telangana - 501 141

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Telangana

¶12

The Collector, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶13

Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶14

M/s. Suryajyoti Spinning Mills Limited, Represented by its Liquidator, Having their office at7-1-285, flat No,^'103, Sri Sai Swapna Sampada Apartments, Balkampet, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 038.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 please issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in not considering the F-Line Application of the Petitioner vide No. DEDR022301000298, dated 1911212023 for demarcating land admeasuring Acres 1.35 Guntas in Survey No. 814/E, Acres 0.36 Guntas in Survey No. 817/RU and Acres 0.02 Guntas in Survey No, 816/4A Guntas thus total admeasuring Acres 2.33 Guntas in Burgul Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana of the Petitioner as not only illegal, arbitrary, unjust but also in violation of Articles 14, 19,21 and 3004 of lndian Constitution but also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the F-Line Application of the Petitioner vide No. DEDR022301000298,^dated 1911212023 applied for demarcation of the land and pass orders at the earliest.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 pleased to direct Respondent No.4 not to proceed with the Auction dated 1910112024 without proper demarcatron of the land in respect of Burgul unit as a whole, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶20

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 direct Respondent No. 2 and 3 herein to consider the Representation of the petitioner daled 0210112024 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAYUR MUNDRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: SRI SOMU SRINIVAS REDDY, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B.MAYUR REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI P,VAJRALAKSHMI SUBBARAO

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.49O OF 2fJ24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Somu Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Vajralakshmi Subbarao, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶27

The petitioner is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of lands admeasuring Acs.1.35 guntas in Sy.No.814/E, Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.817lRU and Ac.0.02 guntas in Sy.No.B16/4,4, total admeasuring Acs.2.33 guntas in Burgul Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In proof of the same, she has filed latest copies of passbook and title deed. She has submitted F-line application vtde ID No.TTDER022301000298, dated 12.09.2023 to respondent No.3 with a request to conduct survey and demarcate the sald property by fixing the boundaries. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said F-llne application, respondent No.3^{is not} considering the same. On the other hand, respondent-^No.4,

¶28

...\

¶29

I {

¶30

KL,J W.P.No.490 of 2024

¶31

¶32

who is the owner of the abutting land, is trying to put the property of the petitioner in auction. Therefore, the present writ petition.

¶33

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that respondent No.4 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.6.05 guntas in Sy.Nos.B22 and 823 at the very same Burgul Village and it has purchased the said property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.663 of 7992, dated 21.04.1992 and respondent No.4 has also obtained passbook. Respondent No.4 is under liquidation and the liquidator is trying to put the said property in auction. Respondent No.4 never tried to auction the property of the petitioner.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has produced written instructions of respondent No.3, wherein he has stated that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property and that she has submitted F-line application, dated

¶35

I I \

¶36

KI,J W.P.No.490 of 2024

¶37

19.12.2023, but the same could not be considered for^the following two reasons:

¶38

The petitioner has applied for conduct of survey^and demarcation of land for the part survey number not^for full/total survey number.

¶39

The petitioner has not submitted consent of the neighbouring la nd owner.

¶40

Therefore, the request of the petitioner shall not be

¶41

considered.

¶42

The said grounds mentioned by respondent No.3 are absurd. The petitioner cannot request respondent No.3^to conduct survey of the land in the entire survey number^and respondent No.3 cannot expect the^petitioner to submit^consent letter of the neighbouring land owner on the said two^grounds mentioned by respondent No.3 are baselsess.

¶43

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to conduct survey of the land^admeasuring Acs.1.35 guntas in Sy.No.814/E, Ac.0.36^guntasin Sy.No.B17lRU and Ac.0.02 guntas in Sy.No.816/AA,^total admeasuring Acs.2.33 guntas in Burgul Village, Farooqnagar

¶44

¶45

KL,J W.P.No.490 of 2024

¶46

¶47

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, by putting the petitioner and respondent No.4 on notice and affording them an opportunity. If respondent No.3 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall pass a reasoned order assigning specific reasons and communicate copy of the said order to the petitioner as well as

¶48

respondent No.4. However, it is made clear that respondent No.3 cannot reject the request made by the petitioner on the ground that she has requested to survey of land in part of survey number and not for full/total survey number and that she has not submitted consent of the neighbouring land owner. Respondent No.3 shall complete the said exercise within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the said exercise is completed, respondent No.4 shall not put the subject property in auction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/-T. JAYASREE rsrANT REGI,qTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^' l,! sEcTloN dfprcen

¶51

¶52

To 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Telangana, State of Telangana.

¶53

The Collector, Farooqnagar Mandal.^{Ranga Reddy} District, Telangana 3. Tahsildar and Joint SLb-Registrar^{Office,Farooqn'agar} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶54

One CC to SRI MAYUR^{IVIUNDRA,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶55

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

¶56

C) oire cc to sRl P VAJRALAKSHMI^{SUBBARAO, Advocate} [oPUC] 7 Two CD Copies

¶57

PSK.

t (

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10412024

ORDER

WP.No.490 ot 2024

{HE€T,1
,<br>Joo 1 0 APR 202{
-<br>* f6:.9 P/rT Lii<:1<br>

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS.

¶69

L0Iq 2I
ty

Bedigi Priyanka v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bedigi Priyanka v. 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