Disposed

Gandu Anjamma (Died Per LRs) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jun 2025WP/14829/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing revenue authorities to dispose of their long-pending RoR appeal concerning agricultural land mutated to third parties. The Court disposed of the petition directing respondent No.4 to decide the appeal within three months after notice to all interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to dispose of ROR Appeal No.A2/113/2014 within three months after hearing all affected/interested parties; no costs.

Gandu Anjamma (Died Per LRs) Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^3296l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE NINTH^{DAYOF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO^{.. 148290F 2025}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gandu Anjamma^{(Died Per LRs),}

¶10

2.GanduSudhakar,S/o.lateGanduChennaiah,AgedaboutT-0years'Occ' - arsin.ts, ruitive of Jukal Village, Shamshabad Mandal,- Ranga Reddy O,stlici,^-i'r"sentiy R/o.^{FlatNo.-'1, 2nd Floor,Meghana Paradise,lshaq} Colony, NearAOe^{Gate,West Marredpally, Secunderabad'}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

l.TheStateofTelangana,RepresentedbyitsPrincipalSecretary,Revenue Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District,Kongarakalan, R.R.District'} Telangana State.

¶15

The Additional District^{Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Kongarakalan, R'R'} District, Telangana State.

¶16

The Special Grade^{Deputy Collector Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer,} KandLikur Division,^{Ranga- ReddyDiskict, TelanganaState.}

¶17

The Tahsildar and Joint^{subRegistrar, Kandukur Mandal, -Kandukur village} and Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District,Telangana State'}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be pleased} to issue appropriate writ,^{order, direction,more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of Mandamus to allow the^{writ petition to direct the Respondents No. 2 to 4 to} dispose the RoR Appeal^No.A2 I^{',113t2}14on the file of Special grade Deputy} Coilector-cum-Revenue^{Divisional Officer,Kandukur Division, R'R Dist'}

¶20

-, it*{i:.if'( *'rF!-'{
.."r

¶21

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 direct the Respondents No.2 and 4 to allow the RoR Appeal No.A2l 11312014 on the file of Special grade Deputy Collector-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, R.R.Dist , by setting aside the orders passed by the Respondent No.S in proceeding file No.B/ 4385/ 2008, Dt.18-7-2009

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. A KESHAVA REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY tr,RIT PETITION No.14829 of 2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reliel

¶30

".... to issue appropiate Wit, ord"er, direction more particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus to allout the uit petitioi to diect tle Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to dbpose the ROR Appeal No.A2/ 113/2014 on the file of Special grode Deputg CoLlector cum-Reuenue Diutsional Offcer, Kandulotr Diuision, R.R. Dslnct and pleased to pa.ss....."

¶31

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at thc admission stagc.

¶32

It is stated that the maternal grandmother of the petitioner late Devershetty Mallamma was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac. l.3S guntas in Sy.No.3gg , Ac.7.2O guntas in Sy.No.389, Ac. 1.17 guntas in Sy.No.391, Ac. 1.16 guntas in Sy.No.431, Ac. 1.34 guntas in Sy.No.432, Ac.l.O2 guntas in Sy.No.433, total admeasuring Acs.9.06 guntas, situated at Akula Mailaram Viilage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that during the lifetime of Devershetty Mallamma, One Devarashetty Balaiah, who is her agnate and distant brother_ in-law, has liled O.S.No.343 of L982 on the file of the District

}

Munisiff, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District against her, seeking perpetual injunction with a malafide intention to grab the subject land. The trial Court upon careful examination has dismissed the Suit hled by Devarashetty Balaiah. Aggrieved by the same, he preferrcd an appeal vide Appeai No.20 of 1990 and the appellate Court also dismissed the same, against which he preferred Second Appeal No.352 of 1993 before the Hon,ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and the same was dismissed by ccnfirmiag the rights of Devershetty Mallamma. It is further stated that on coming to knorv that after the death of Devershetty Mallzrmma, the subject land rvas mutated in the name of third parties, the petitioner, along with his mother, filed ROR A.ppeal No.A2/ 113/2014 before respondent No.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said appeal is pending for the last 10 years before respondent No.4 and and in vierv of non disposal of the appeal in time, the petitioner is unable to receive various incentives sanctioned by the Government for cultivation of the subject land.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue has submitted that the Telangana Rights in Lancl and pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for sli;it "the ROR Act, 197l"l was repealed and repiaced by the Telangana Rights in land and pattada-r Passbcol<s Acl,2C2O (for short "tlre Act 9 of 2O2O") ancl under the said Act, the .ppea1 hied by the petitioner has been tr:rnsferred to

¶38

¶39

the Special Tribunal-respondent No.4 and the sarr:e has been numbered as Appeal No.A2l 1 13 /20214 .

¶40

In view of l-he above submissions and since the Act 9 of 2O2O was also repealed and replaced rvith the Telangana Bhu Bharathi (Record of Rights in Lands) Act, 2O2S and tfre petitioncr filed the appeal under the provisions of the repealed ROR Act, 1971, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if respondent No.4 is directed to dispose of the ROR Appeal No.A2/ 113/2OI4 after issuing notice and hearing all the effected / interested parties as expeditiously as possible, preterably, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41