Dismissed

Aenkepally Premkumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2024WP/7658/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking declaration that the deletion of his late grandfather's name from an Occupancy Right Certificate was illegal. The petitioner requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue an order based on a representation submitted in February 2024 following a delay of over 45 years regarding the original certificate dated 1977.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioners representation dated 29.02.2024 by putting the petitioner and all affected parties on notice and pass a reasoned order within six m

Aenkepally Premkumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE 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: 7658 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Aenkepally Premkumar, Sio Late Gandaiah, Ag ed bout 47 yea$, Occ agriculture, R/o Rajendra nagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

3 The Revenue Dlvisional Offrcer, Chevella Division, R.R.District.

¶14

4 The Tahasildar, Shankarpally Mandal, R R.District.

¶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 issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 to 4 in deleting the name of the father of the petitioner in respect of the property an extent of Ac. 8- 21 Guntas comprised in survey No.286 situated at Janwada village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the provisions of law and consequently direcl the Respondent No.2 to 4 herein consider the representation dated 29-2-2024 submitted by the petitioner.

¶17

--------7

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 direct the Respondent No.2 to 4 consider the representation dated 29-2-2024 submitted by the petitioner.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THOODI CHANDRASEKHAR RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

t-=

I t

(

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.7658 of 2o24

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri T. Chandra Shekar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3.

¶29

The petitioner herein is claiming that Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) vide proceedings No.A1/440/1977 dated 23.12.1977 was issued by respondent No.3 in favour of Sri Yenkepally Rama @ Ramaiah S/o. Late Venkataiah, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 08.21 guntas ln Sy.No.286 situated at Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner is claiming that he is the grandson of said Yenkepally Rama. However, he has submitted representation dated 29.02.2024 with respondent No.4 to implement the said ORC

¶30

Except the aforesaid ORC, he has not filed any document to show that he is the grandson of Yenkepally Rama. There is no explanation much less plausible explanation from him with regard to the abnormal delay caused in submitting said representation. Though the said ORC was issued on 23.12.1977, the petitioner herein has submitted the aforesaid representation on 29.12.2024 with respondent No.4 with a request to

¶31

¶32

-- \ -'-ttTi

¶33

implement the said ORC. However, having received the said application, respondent No.4 should have considered the same.

¶34

Whereas, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue would submit that respondent No.4 will put petitioner and all affected parties on notice and afford them an opportunity and consider the aloresaid representation by following due procedure laid down under law.

¶35

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed off directing respondent No.4 to consider the relrresentation dated 29.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accor<.lance with taw by putting the petitioner and all affected parties on notice and affor<iing them the opporhrnity. If respondent No.4 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shalt assign specific reasons and pass a reasoned order, communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioner and complete the said exercise within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pcnding in the Writ

¶37

¶38

Petition shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/. MOHD.SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT BEG]PTRAR //TRUE COPY/I W'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{Secretary, State of Telangana, Departmentof Revenue'Office} at Secretaiiat^{Buildings.Hyderabad.} -.

¶44

The District^{Collector, Ranga ReddyDlstnct-} . . -

¶45

ii;; R;;;Le^{Divisionalofricer, Ch-evella-Division,R R District}

¶46

+. fne fanasildar,^{Shankarpally Mandal' R.R District'} 5 ffi^b-C to^{Snr TFrooor-cnAruoansexnnn RAo, Advocate loPUCl} 6. Two ccs to^{Gp FoR REViN'[J'E, nigii-courtfoi the state'of Telangana} tourl 7. Two CD CoPies BSK LS

I I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10412024

ORDER

WP.No.7658 of 2024

1 HE srAf e
e
(o
.?
+
,,
2 3 APR 2u{ t',2 r)
.)
*
t,/
r.it ST'AiC

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

1"t

Aenkepally Premkumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aenkepally Premkumar 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

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

Ananthula Bharathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Chitikeri Chennaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Bedigi Priyanka Vs State of Telangana