Disposed

Rachamalla Rama chandraiah(died as per LRs) v. Rachamalla Saidulu

Telangana HC22 Apr 2025WA/382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal concerning setwar/rectification entries in revenue records. Respondent No.1 had not availed the remedy of approaching the Government against the Additional Collector's order as directed by the Single Judge; the Division Bench disposed of the appeal holding no impediment existed for official respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rachamalla Rama chandraiah(died as per LRs) Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶2

i I I l

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR T,-IE SI AT HYDE#JXDOF^TELANGANA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY I ruuo iHbudi,r'; hi;"$Li?+v^{op RpR tL}

PRESENT

THE HoNoURABLE THE ,

PA U L rH E H o N o u R^ r. =^^{:ffir#l:'.'*.} WRIT APP APP ^]fi^i:l"l

¶9

WRIT APP APP EAL.N O: 382oF 2025

¶10

writ Appear under crause 15 0f the Letters patent preferred Against the order ::ff""r.1rrr025, passed in Wp.No. 32412 of 2O24.on the fite of the Hish Court.

¶11

1 ffi^{','ru,q++I.n;'N##**.}

¶12

2 ffi

¶13

3 sfu1itr#*:#t.Tt^iJ?5?i?l:","J:ffi

¶14

H::;ff ,ff I"J,X1

¶15

AND

¶16

1 Rachamalla Saidulu. S, ngricutuieln%:T;il,;j"#ijrT,ll3h:fl S^j,:ft :il#:J:ffi .?*

¶17

¶18

,..RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶19

i ru ru,l ;;llt:ru#ffi1*:;-]

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

IA NO: 10F 2025

¶22

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the order in W.p.No.324 1Z o,f 2024.

¶23

IA NO: 2 oF 2025

¶24

petition under {iection^{151 cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{fired in support of the petition, the High court may tre pleased to} receive^{the material papers as an additional materlal papers}

¶25

Counsel^{for the Appellants: SRI CHAITHANYA'K ..} ffi;;i^{io, it'" nlipono"ntt'lo't: sRl RAPoLU-BHASKAR} counsel^{ror the Respon#;il;;;oiiinrxernaM MURALIDHARREDDY'} GP FOR FOR^REVENUE

¶26

GP FOR FOR^REVENUE

¶27

Ttre Court^{made the following:JUDGMENT}

¶28

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CIIIEF'JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL rHE H.N,BLE sMT.H&r", RENur(A WRIT lYo.382of202s 'ARA

¶29

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon,ble the Acting Chief Justice.gujog paut)

¶30

Sri K. Chaithanya, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.l ald Sri Katram Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.2 to 5

¶31

The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the instant Writ Petition at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 opined as under:

¶32

"6. ^ This writ petition is filed quesrionins thr recommending fo. i""r_rr"E-ii-lufi#;# No.B/ r87 / 2022 dated t..to.2g;;";;;#" #..::.r:..jJ:f" sethwar and ^[:;for rectification of the entries i.,.trr" ."r.ii.-;;";;"1 The petirioner has nor quesrioned the proceedi"e, N".i);i)"iii) :h-,"c."r.""I,".",i."{fl ;:T,,:ff f..,"".JXekm: 8;ff," ;'U':#i':1,f.:: aaj uaicatea-Jil. ;; ii. comperen r ci vi r L. R Acr,, Ji r' """i ti'.' H?H::Tt"$til*:.i:;;:,::: ::j:i ts rssued to him before conductr.ng ""*t;;;..".ia u.uo., or, rr,. jt$.:: respondents amounts ,o-"iorr,ii., o] irj.r.ror." of natural

¶33

or the petitioner that no notice is issued I; n,- otiil'.',j::iff.?: ;ll"..Itt#+r"i,iil;pffiH.J,l,:,,.j,ff^{,::,1;"t jT} lillll,;;r;+--;h:"'ffi proceedrngs dated o9.o6.2o22-issuJ t, ,i. iEEitio.,rt Coilecror, =t*:"::Ti.:"1:,iH$.:.,ffi.t: within a period of three 13) wsqk" rro_ il. iu-',.^Jt"..".,0, of copy o[ :i::.?::.1"^{,:_ff,:J-,li:,nr.,g} ".,"r,^{upiii;;;;,":."o.ndenr} No r is records;;;;';"'",1;ff;.rl,lr:llln:t.%;:::.;,*i

¶34

.,1

¶35

¶36

anrDropriate^{orders, ln accordancewith 1aw' Till. the disposal of the} H;il""ffi.^{i- iiiJ uv ttJp"tition"''-*rl.rarrsft{aris directed not} to entertain^{..ytppr'tttiot'Jiot tt<:tin<:ationof entries/ch'rngeof} extent or^{survey numbers/forissuance} :l supplenlentarlr of the^subject setwar/change 'rl^{nature li'ii-t" r'-a"} '".,:t"-"f^:tt property, in^{any rnanne'' Lt ta"e' if the petitioner has not fited aly} the respondent:;^{are at} application^{withlrrthe.trm" ^"tJ"i"i"a} "Uo'e' libertv to take^appropnat" "r:tio"'^{in accordancewithlaw'"}

¶37

(EmPhasis^S-'rPPlied)

¶38

the learned^SingleJudge' 3.' As Per^{the rforesaidorderof} respondent^No.1 /^{u'rit petitionerwas atliberty toassail the} order/proceedings^{No'A/22512022 of the Additional Coller:tor' dated} Og.06.2022^{beforethe Government'}

¶39

On a sPecific^{query fromthe Bench, learnedc ounselfor} submits that^{resPor dent No ' 1} respondent^{No.l,"vrit Petitioner} preferred arr^{application before the District Collectoragainst the} aforesaid^{order of the AdditionalCollector'}

¶40

l,earned^{counsel for the appellants/ respondent l\los'6 to8} submits^{that the said applicationliled by respondent No' t' beforethe} District^{Collectoris not maintainable'The order of this ()ourt in the} instant Writ^{Petition is very clear that if the writ petitio:rer has not} the stiPulated.^{timebeforethe} f,rled any^{aPPlication within} were at^{libertY totake} Government, the^{official respondents} appropriate^{actior-'.,in accordance with the law'}

¶41

¶42

¶43

Learned Government pleader of Revenue submits.that against the order of the Additional Collector, no appeal lies to the District Collector.

¶44

7 Since respondent No. I /writ petitioner has not preferred any proceedings before the appropriate authority as directed by the learned Single Judge in his order in paragraph No.7, official respondents/respondent Nos.2 to 5 are at liberty to proceed 1n accordance with the law. It is made clear that since respondent No. 1/writ petitioner has not avajled the remedy as mentioned in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, there is no impediment before the official respondents to proceed in accordance with the law.

¶45

With the aforesaid and without expressing any views on the merits of the matter, this writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneoirs petitions pending, if aly, shall stand clo sed.

¶46

SD/-M.MANJULA

¶47

JOINT REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

To SECTION OFFICER J21. The The DistrictThe SecretariaRevenuPrinci pal e CollectoHyderabad, Secreta ry, Divisionalr NalagonofficerState of TelanganaRevenue da, NaDelgonda districtpartment, Se taria t Building, 4 Mirya laguda Division, Na Igonda district The Tahsitd ar Tripuram mand al, Nalgonda district

¶50

6.5 One CC to S RI CHAITHANYA K, Advocate IoPUCI

¶51

6.5 7. One CC to S RI RAPOLU BHASKAR, AdVocate [OPUC Two CCs to GP FOR REVEN UE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

¶52

Hyderabad [our]

¶53

8 Two CD Cop res

¶54

PSK.

¶55

BS g

HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT

WA.No.382^{of 2025}

::ii
\tso
Y
q
liI Ct-) -b
, ,J 2 5 IPB ''t25
..7
4,
+ i-,..r - r!',

¶60

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT APPEAL} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶61

0)04.'' W

Rachamalla Rama chandraiah(died as per LRs) v. Rachamalla Saidulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rachamalla Rama chandraiah(died as per LRs) v. Rachamalla Saidulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. New Jaya Plywood Vs The Superintendent of Central Tax

M/s. Mangalya Shopping Mall Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Pittala Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Shah Enterprises Vs The Union of India

Dalapathi Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

M/s. Sri Chakra Total. Gaz Distributors Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)