Disposed

Chinthapalli Triveni v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2025WA/314/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land dispute over Ac.0-06.61 guntas in Sy.No.250/A at Gundlapochampally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri. Since the same survey number was covered by an earlier Division Bench order directing consideration of the applicant's representation, this Court directed respondents 2 and 4 to decide the appellant's pending representation and disposed of the appeal without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 4 directed to decide appellant's representation dated 13.09.2024 within one month; appeal disposed without costs.

Chinthapalli Triveni Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HiGH^{COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE ACTING_CHIEFJUSTICE SUJOYPAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE^{STVii JUSTICERENUKAYARA}

¶6

WRIT APP^{EAL NO:31 40F 2025}

¶7

Writ Appeal^{under clause15 of the Letters Patent Againstthe Orderdated} il;9-id24^{i" W.p.No zosssO F 2024 on the file of the Hish Court'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

fi:lii:flsiJ:' ',fiy;"'n#"?b:,f3:"B3,lll;''ElTilh'*%"s'i"'iY'^%113ili;3fi1 V[ir.ii"piinutn,^{AndhraPradesh}

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

bv its Principal^{Secretary Revenue Department'}

¶13

1 The State ofTelangana'^ReP Dr.B.R. Ambedkar^Telangana Secretariat,^HYderabad'

¶14

The District^{Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District'}

¶15

3.TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer'KeesaraDivision'Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict

¶16

The Tahsildar-cum-Sub^{Registrar' MedchalMandal' tvledchal-Malkalgiri} District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

lA NO: 2 oF²⁰²⁵

¶19

petition under section 151 cpc^{praying that.in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in suppJ; ;i ih; p'"iii"'"' in" H.igh courtmav be pleasedto} suspend^{the order ort"o'idilsi-i-oi+'ptt"uoin Wp No'zogggof 2024 in the} interest^{of justice.}

¶20

Counsel^{forthe Appellant: SRIP'BHANU P!4I11f} counsel^{for the Respono""t"isnl roruRALrDHARREDDY KATRAM'}

¶21

GP FOR^REVENUE

¶22

ihe Court^{madethe following: JUDGMENT}

¶23

.;;

¶24

THE HoN'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶25

trIRIT No.314 of 2025

¶26

JUDGMEN T (per the Hon,ble the Acting Chief Justice SujoA paut):

¶27

Sr^p. Bhalu prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and sri M rralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Governr'ent pleader for Revenue, 1c,1 15" respondents.

¶28

2 Wirh the consent, frnally heard

¶29

Lee rne j counsel for the appellant submit s that the appeilant's gr evance before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26999 of 2024 was relating to land arlmeasuring Ac.0-06.61 g-urrtas (or) 800 Sq.yds in Sy.No.25O/A,,,AA/E/EI-, situated :rt Cundlapochampally Village ald Gram;rarrchayat, Medhca_l M:rnclal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District. Learned Single Judge has rlisnrissed the said writ petition on 30.09.20 24 and opined that tht: subject property is not an agricultural land. In relation to tlte same survey number and against a sinrilar order in W.P.No.2(|ZB2, of 2024, an appeal was filed before a Division Bench in WA.No.l39I of 2024. In the said case, th.e land in

¶30

question was relating to same survey number which can be see\ \

¶31

il'l

¶32

¶33

from the^{description of land in paragraph No'3 of the judgment} of the^{Division Bench inW'A'No'1391 of2024' dated} 13.12.2024-^{The Division Bench directed respondent Nos'2 and} 4 therein^{to consider the application submitted by the appellant} therein^and Pass^{a sPeakingorder'}

¶34

4 The singular^{contention of learned cou'nsel for the} appellant^{is that the presentmatter' since relates to same survey} number,^{may be decided interms of judgment passed} 1n W.A.No.1391^of2024'

¶35

5 l,e arned^{Government Pleader forRevenue' forthe} respondents,^{raised formal objection'}

¶36

6 Since^{the surveynumber issame in both the matters' rn} the htness^{of things, we deem it proper to follow the judgment} passed in^{W.A.No' 13 9l of 2024 and direct respondent Nos'2and} 4 to decide^{theappellant's pending representationdated} l3.Og.2O24^{within one month from the date of receiptof copy of} this order.

¶37

Accordingly,^{this Writ Appeal is disposed of without} expressing^{any opinionon meritsof the case' No costs}

(.'

lnterkrcutory applications, if any pending. shall also

stand closcd.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI

GISTRAR

OFFICER

The Princirral S ecretarv Revenue.Department, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat. State of Trilangana, UyO<iribad.'"^'''

¶50

The Distric: Col,ector, Medchal_Malkajgiri District.

¶51

The Revenue Divisionar officer, Keesara Division, Medchar-rvrarkajgiri District

¶52

The Tahs lda.-cum-Sub District. Registrar, Medchal Mandal, Medchal_Malkajgiri

¶53

One CC to SRt^T.BHANU PRAKASH, Advocate. tOpUCl

¶54

Two CCs io cl) FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana louTl

7 . fwo CD Co pies

BSK

)

I
'c

HIGH COUIRT

DATED:20 t13t2}2s

JUDGMENT

( 1Ht- SIr l4r
J
(
i 1t an ;,y6
I
.So116,.rr *

¶66

WA.No.314 <tf 2,025

¶67

DISPOSING ()F THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

,/2
1-,,
g//- ./.<l

Chinthapalli Triveni v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinthapalli Triveni 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s India Ahead News Private Limited Vs Union of India

M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Assistant Commissioner ( Ct ) (Ltu )

M/s. Oswal Cables Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer-Iii

M/s.Vani Enterprises Vs The Superintendent (Central Tax)

M/s.Bhargav Medical Hall Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)