Disposed

Posani Thirupathamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jan 2025WP/1347/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Siblings claiming shares in ancestral agricultural land under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 sought direction to revenue authorities not to permit alienation of the suit property pending their partition suit. The High Court disposed of the writ petition at admission stage, relegating them to seek injunction in the pending civil suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Posani Thirupathamma Vs The State of Telangana — Partition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

IUONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1347 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Posani Thirupathamma, W/o:Mallaiah, Aged about 59^yrs, Occ.Household, Rl/o H,No.9-94lA, Gollapalli Village, Kamanpur Mandal, Peddapalli District,

¶9

, 2.^{Rapaka Venkatamma,Wo: LateRajaiah,Agedabout 55yrs, Occ. Household} R/o H.N0.1-58, Kanapur Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District,

¶10

..,PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Peddapalli Disirict.

¶14

.) The Revenue Divisional Officer, tManthani Division, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District.

¶16

( Basa Madhunamma, Wo: Late lvladhunaiah, Aged about 70yrs, Occ.Not working, Rl/o Kamanpur Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District,

¶17

Encherla Komalata, W/o:Ehikshapathi, Aged about 45yrs, Occ. Not working, R/o H.No,1-191, Charlagadiga Village, Chityala [,4andal, Warangal District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 a) issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of Respondents Nos.2 to 4 in not considering my representation dated 07.12.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 , and 300(A) of the Constitution of lndia and b) consequently direct the Respondents Nos.2 to 4 to ensure that the subject property in Sy.No.1698, admeasuring Ac.5-39gts, situated at Khansabpet Village, Manthani

¶20

Mandal, Peddapalli District, is not alienated to any third parties without prior notice and consent of the petitioner, c) direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to stop the benefits of the Rythubandu schemes, farmers welfare schemes and other benefits in pursuant to the subject land.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 grant an interim order of injunction, restraining Respondents Nos.5 and 6 from alienating or creating third-party rights over the subject property in Sy.No.1698, admeasuring Ac.5-39gts, situated at Khansabpet Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District, pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AMBALA RAJU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6:----

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^{BHASKAR REDDY}

¶29

UIRIT PETITION No.1347 of 2025

¶30

ORDER

¶31

It is stated that the petitioners are the siblings^of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and their case is that the^{propertyi.e.,} agricuitural land admeasuring Acs.5.39^{guntasin Sy.No. 1698,} situated at Khansabpet Village, Manthani^{Mandal,Peddapalli} District, is ancestral property and they are entitled to the share in the said property by virtue of the amendment being carried out in Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2OO5. It is further stated that when respondent Nos.S and 6 have denied^for partition of the subject property, the petitioners were constrained to institute a suit for partition uide O.S.No.14 of 2023 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Manthani and the said suit is pending. It is further stated that pending adjudication of the said partition suit, respondent Nos.5 and 6, whose names being recordcd in the revenue records, are making efforts to alienate the subject property and in the event of respondent Nos.5 and 6 succeeding in their attempts in alienating the subject property and creating third party interest, the petitioners will sustain irreparable loss. Therefore, the petitioners have made a representation, dated 07.12.2024 before respondent No.2 seeking to stop the investment subsidies

¶32

¶33

CVI]R, J \rp _1347 2025

¶34

to be granted in favour of respondent Nos.S and 6 and not to entertain any transactions in respect of the subject property. The grievancc of the petitioners is that even after receiving the said representation, the respondent authorities are not conside ring the same.

¶35

Consrdered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleadcr for Revenue for respondent Nos. I to 4 ancl with their conscnt, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. In view of thc nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofhcial respondents is dispensed with.

¶36

Learnecl Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenuc has submittcd that since the partition suit is pendirrg bcfore the civil Court., the pctitioners are entitled to make appropriate applir:ation bcft>rc thc said Court seeking for injunction restraining respondent Nos.S and 6 from alienating the subject property.

¶37

From lhe above, pima facie, it appears that the petitioners claim the rights over the ancestral property as cosharers and as they being the siblings of respondent Nos.5 and

¶38

CVBR, J wp.1347 _2025

¶39

6 are entitled to the share in the subject property by virtue of the amendment in Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

¶40

In view of the above submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the,. matter and since the partition suit is pending, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioners to file appropriate application in the pending suit and in the event of filing of such application, the Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, is directed to dispose ol the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

With the above observations, this writ petition is <lisposed

¶42

of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶43

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

¶44

SD/.N. SRIHARI A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER )

¶45

To, ) '1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building The State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶46

The District Collector, Peddapalli District.

¶47

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani Division,^{[\rlanthaniMandal,} Peddapalli District,

¶48

The Tahsildar, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District.

¶49

One CC to Sri Ambala Raju, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State^{of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶51

Two CD Copies

TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010112025

ORDER

WP.No.1347 ot 2025

Ut- SiAr
{
a.
7
c 2 B [Pf 2025
l
DEspar c

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

\o
ZD

Posani Thirupathamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Posani Thirupathamma v. The State of Telangana

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

Sofiya Munawar Vs The State of Telangana

Mandhugula Santhosh Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Ahmed Aleemuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Pramila Devi Vs State of Telangana

Amula Yadamma Vs The State of Telangana

Maram Venkata Gopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana