Disposed

Chandupatla Krishna v. The State of Telanaga

Telangana HC4 Apr 2024WP/8773/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding mutation of agricultural land. Court directed the District Collector to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before considering the mutation application lodged by the petitioner's nephew.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to put the petitioner and other affected parties on notice and afford an opportunity of hearing before passing appropriate orders within 8 weeks.

Chandupatla Krishna Vs The State of Telanaga — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND T1ruCruTY TOUN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8773 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chandupatla Krishna, S/o. Late Venkanna, Aged 33^years, Occ: Agriculture, nlo^{pitt5tarnrrri} virrade oi survapet lrrlandai, s"uryapetbiitri6, _: ^ __ ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, rep- by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariate, Building Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

The District Collector, Collectorate Complex, Suryapet Town and District.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet Revenue Division, Suryapet District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, SURYAPET Mandal and District.

¶14

Chandupatla Janardhan, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Agriculture,^Rl/o. Pillalamarri Village, Suryapet Mandal & 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 Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IVANDAIVUS declaring the inaction of 4th respondent in considering my objections rs bad, illegal, void, arbitrary, against the^principles of^natural justice and vrolation of Act 9 of 1977 and Article 300-4 of the Constitution of the lndia consequently direct the 4th respondent to^pass appropriate^orders considering the objections of the^petitioners and affording oppo(unity^{for hearing} them through their counsel.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt frled in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} direct the 4th respondent to consider the representation dated^15.O3.2024 pending disposal of this wrrt petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. MAHESH^{KUMAR REPRESENTINGFOR}

¶20

SRI K. NAVEEN KUMAR REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI SOMU^{SRINIVAS REDDY,} ASST. GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No-5:^{- - - -} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.8773 OF 2024

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri V. Mahesh Kumar, learned^{counsel, representing,} Mr. K. Naveen Kumar Reddy, learned counsel^{for the petitioner} and Sri Somu Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant^Govemment Pleader for Revenue. In the light of the reliel sought by^the petitioner, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

¶27

Petitioner herein is claiming that originally land in Survey No.832/18 situated at Pillalamarri Village, Suryapet Mandal and District, was Government land and in revenue records it is recorded as Bancharai (Sarkari). In prool ol the same,^{he has} filed pahani copies etc. In the^year 1978-79, land admeasuring Acs.l-l8 guntas in the said survey number was assigned to his grandfather Mr. Chandupatla Ramaiah S/o. Venkaiah. [Ie is also father of the 5th respondent. I'here were disputes among them which were resolved in the presence of elders and it^was agreed before the elders by the petitioner and 5'h respondent that they^witl distribute the subject land and cultivate thc same. Even then,^5th

¶28

¶29

! ,, I !II

¶30

respondent had submiued online application^{vide No.2300789447} with 2nd respondent with a request to mutate his name and issue e-pattadar passbook in his name. Therefore,^{petitioner hereinhad} submitted written objections dated 15.03.2024^{with2nd respondent} with a request to consider the aforesaid facts.^{The apprehensionof} the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent^{may not considerthe} written objections dated 15.03.2024 submitted^{by the petitionerto} the online apptication submitted by^{5'h respondent. Therefore,the} present Writ Petition.

¶31

Whereas. leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue submitted that^2"d respondent^{willconsiderthe objections} dated 15.03.2024 submitted by the^petitioner to the^online application submitted by 5'h respondent^{and pass appropriate} orders.

¶32

ln the tight of the aloresaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed oiT directing 2nd respondent to^{put petitioner on} notice and afford him an oppornrnity of^{hearing while considering} the online apptication vide No.2300'l8gM7 submitted by^5e respondent seeking mutation in respect of^the subject^property.

¶33

¶34

¶35

The 2nd respondent shalt pass appropriate orders^strictlyln accordance with law by putting petitioner, respondent No.5^{and all} affected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of

¶36

hearing. He shall complete the entire exercise within a^period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of^{this order.}

¶37

There shall be no order as to costs

¶38

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶39

pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶40

SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

!{,,, SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The Principal Secretary, Revenue, The Slate of Telangana, Secretariate, Building Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶45

The District Collector. Collectorate Complex, Suryapet Town and DistriA.

¶46

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet Revenue Divisioin, Suryapet District-

¶47

The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, SURYAPET lVandal and District.

¶48

One CC to SRI K. NAVEEN KUIMAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. tourl

¶49

Two CD Copies BN GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412024

'''.-tj

ORDER

WP.No.8773 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

9r"o ',PO

Chandupatla Krishna v. The State of Telanaga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandupatla Krishna v. The State of Telanaga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Merugu Sampath Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Gayadapaka Manjula Vs The Collector

J.Ramalingam Vs The State of Telangana

Polati Andalamma alias Andallu Vs The State of Telangana

Kunta Akhileshwari Vs The state of Telangana

Pathlavath Anuradha Vs The State of Telangana