Allowed

Smt. Prameela v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Apr 2024WP/8975/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is an order in a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus. The court directed the Mandal Surveyor and the District Tahsildar to conduct and conclude a survey of the petitioner's agricultural land within eight weeks by issue of notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Mandal Surveyor and 4th Respondent to conduct and conclude the survey within eight weeks by issuing notice and affording an opportunity to the petitioner and 5th respondent.

Smt. Prameela Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 897 oF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

R[lr?i,,ti,]fl ;.K,,];::,il,%,?l?ti js:i^1le#f,,..Jsil,?;"f "*Housewire,

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The State of Telanqana. Throuoh its Revenue Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad Represented by its Secretary

¶12

2 State of Telanoana, Throuoh its panchayat Raj Department. Secretaflat, Hyderabad, Represented 6y its Secretai

¶13

3 The District Collector, Narayanpet Distflct.

¶14

4 The Tahsildar, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District

¶15

Ili8:::lJ.'ffi3'3!,.81ru;"t^{Virrase' A'4addurMandarNaravanperDistrict,}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

^,--..^{. L:ti,,o, u.nder Articte 2?6 ot the Constitution of tndia praying} that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ti," ff iifi Crt may be pleased to lssue a writ, order or direction and more parti"ut.ay oni in ,nu nature of writ of Mandamus rhereby directins tn" n.rfonJent!;;;;; i; ;;;.];", rhe represenration grven .by me in May, 2023 and.arso to give "n".i io'tt l"Noiice dated 1010512023 tssued by the office of Resoondent,no +"ano fl,eielfto' Jir.i"i,n" Respondent no.4 lo conduct survey of Survev number I O: of ahr'n""j rTiiage, I,,taOour lManoat, available and Narayanpet District pass and put us in possession "t in""rir"O[ lands to the extent

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI S. KESHAVA RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l,3 & 4: SRI SOMU SRINIVAS REDDY, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.z GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.s: SRI R.CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDy, SC FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

/i /

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.8975 of 2o24

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri S.Keshava Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Somu Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Perused the record.

¶29

Petitioner herein is claiming that her father is the absolute owrrer and possessor of agriculture land situated in Sy.No.163 to an extent of Acs.S.13 guntas situated at Bhuneed Vi1lage, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District. In proof of the same, she has filed copies of pattedar passbook and title deed. He died on 31.07.2013, leaving behind the petitioner, her three sisters as his legal heirs. She has submitted an application with respondent Nos.3 and 4 with a request to conduct survey and demarcate ttre aforesaid property. On receipt of the said notice, the Mandal Surveyor, Keesara ofhce of the 4th respondent had issued notice dated 10.05.2023 fixing the date^'26.05.2023.

¶30

¶31

According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the Mandal Surveyor did not conduct survey on the said date and they have not issued any notice, therefore, the present writ petition.

¶32

Whereas learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, on instructions, wourd submit that the Mandal Surveyor, Keesara office of the 4tr, respondent will conduct survey pursuant to the said notice and conclude in accordance with law.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Mandal Surveyor, Kothapally Mandal, Narayanapet District, and the 4trr respondent to conduct and conclude the survey pursuant to the notice vide file No.l/2023 dated lO.OS.2023 strictly in accordance with law, by putting the petitioner and the 5th respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity. If the Mandal Surveyor, Kothapa-lly Mandal, Narayanapet District, and the 4th respondent are not inclined to accept the request of the petitioner, they shall assign specific

¶34

i'
I

¶35

¶36

reasons, pass a reasoned order and shall communicate copy of the said order to the petitioner. They shall complete the entire exercise within a period of eight ({}) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/- N. CHANDRII SEKHAR BAO ASSISTAI'l T REGISTRAR

¶39

//TRUE COPY// 6/t / w

¶40

SEC:TION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

1 The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secrelariat, Hyderabad.

¶43

2 The Secretary State of Telangana, Tl]rough its Panchayat Raj Dipartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶44

3 The District Collector, Narayanpet District.

¶45

4 The Tahsildar, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District

¶46

5 The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhuneed Village, Maddur Man(]a1. Narayanpet District

¶47

6 One CC to Sfl S Keshava Rao Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

7 One CC to Sri R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, SC for Grampanchayirt, [OPUC]

¶49

8 Two CCs to GP for cP For Panchayat Raj &Rural Development, High Couit for

¶50

the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶51

o Two CCs to GP for Revenue ,High Court for the State of Telangirna at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶52

10 Two CD Copies

cSm

HIGH COURI

DATED:08/04/2024

d-
k
ua
I g tN >C;
.r I , .-lr' /,r,
... . -. .r'x',j..../

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No.8975 of 2024

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Smt. Prameela v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prameela 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Nirmala Vs The State of Telangana

Chandupatla Krishna Vs The State of Telanaga

Ganganaboyina Sathaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Nunavath Chinna Shankar Vs Shri. Ram Kumar

J.Boyi Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Abdul Khader Vs State of Telangana