Allowed

J.Ramalingam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Apr 2024WP/8574/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the inaction of the State in considering a land survey application. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Assistant Director to consider the application, provide notice to affected parties, and complete the survey within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, to consider the F-Line application, afford notice to affected parties, and complete the land survey within eight weeks.

J.Ramalingam Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 8574 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

JRamalingam., S/o. J.Gangaram, Aged 55 years, Occ;Agriculture, Rio.H.No..l-19/2, Chimrajpally Nandipet, Mandal, Nizamabad' District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, Nizamabad District.

¶14

The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nizamabad District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the inaction of the Respondents 3 and s in not considering Petitioners Application DER022200791305 dt. 29lo4lzo22 and conducting, land survey in sy.No.40/1/'l 1 land to an extentof Ac.1.20 gts. situated chimrajpally village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District, is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14, 300-A of constitution of lndia. principlds of Natural Justice and Report Decision in 2016 (3) ALT 653 consequenfly to direct the Respondents 3 and 5 to consider Petitioners Application DERo2220o-91305 dt. 29t04t2022 to conduct survey of land in Sy.No. 40/1/1 1 land to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts,

¶19

-::7

¶20

situated Chimrajpally Viltage, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District, forthwith in the interest of justice.

¶21

|.A.NO:'t OF 2024

¶22

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 Respondents 3 and 5 to consider Petitioners Application DER0222O0791305 dt. 2910412022 and conduct land survey in Sy.No. 4Ol1111 land to an extent of Ac.1 .20 gts, situated Chimrajpally Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District, pending the writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SOMU SRINIVAS REDDY, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN}

¶27

WRIT PETITION^{No.8574OF 2024}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Sri Shafath^{AhmedKhan, learned counselfor the} petitioner and Sri Somu Srinivas^{Reddy, learnedAssistant} Govemment Pleader^{for Revenue.}

¶30

Petitioner herein is^{claiming that he is the absolute} owner and^possessor of^{land admeasuring Acs.l-2Oguntas in} Survey No.4O/l/ll^{situated at Chimrajpally Vitlage, Nandipet} Mandal, Nizamabad District.^{In proof of the same,he has filed} latest Pattadar^{passbookbearingNo.Tll16031004E with Khata} No.97. Petitioner submitted^{F-Lineapplicationvide Transaction} e. Id No.TTDERO222OO7}I305^{dated 29.04-2022 with the 5s} respondent seeking survey of^{subject land. Havingreceived and} acknowledged the said^{F-line application,tlre 5ft respondentdid} not act upon the same.^{Therefore, the present Writ Petition'}

¶31

Whereas, learned Assistant^{Govemment Pleader for}

¶32

Revenue on instructions would submit^{that the 5ft respondentwill}

¶33

I I

¶34

¶35

consider the said F-line application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶36

In the light of the afo resaid submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing rhe 5'h respondent to consider the aforesaid F_line application vide Transaction Id No.TTDER02 220079130s dated 29.04.2022 submitted by the petitioner, for conducting survey of the aforesaid land s trictly in accordance with law, by putting the petitioner and all effected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. I[, the 56 respondent is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall assign specific reasons and pass a reasoned order and communicate a copy of the said order to the pedtioner. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of eight (g) weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

//TRUE COPYII

ASs,ssPIfiYR.;6!+3iR

SECTION OFFICER

] ilB iJI""i':J^{iff :,1ila*"'enue Department, secreta riat, state or} z. tne District Coliector. Nizamabad District.

The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nizamabad District. 4. r ne Kevenue Utvisaonal Offrcer, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. 5. The Tahsitdar, Nandipet Mandal, NizamaOiO OiJt?ici.6. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for tne S'taie of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶47

7 9n" Q9^{to Sri ShefathAhmed Khan,} Advocate tOpUCl 8. Two CD Copies

SA BS

HIGH COURT

\ DATED:03/04/2024 t

ORDER

WP.No.8574 ol 2024

HE STA 16:
o
.i.g d'(
:it.)
lio 1 5 APB 202{ C)
.L
.o
t t
o
EsparcHr!

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶57

o*o
e o $

J.Ramalingam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Ramalingam 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

Shaik Khabeer Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Imran Vs Dasari Balaiah

Kommidi Thirupathi Reddy Vs The state of Telangana

D.Muralidhar Reddy Vs D.Srinivas Reddy

Rathlavath Raju Vs The State of Telangana

K. Venkat Reddy Vs Sri G Madhu