Disposed

Maramraju Godamma , M.v.Goda Devi v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2025WP/15022/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Bhoodan Board to act on her representation regarding land in Sy.Nos.336 and 337, Agirala village, whose Dana Patrika was rejected in 1964. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing her to file a fresh representation, to be decided within eight weeks after notice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider fresh representation and pass orders within 8 weeks after notice.

Maramraju Godamma , M.v.Goda Devi Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^329e ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15022 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Maramraju Godamma @ M.V.GODA DEVI, W/o M.V. Sreedhar Rao Aged about 81 years, Occ .Agriculture Rlio Agirala Village, Kondurg [\ilandal Ranga Reddv District' T's'

¶9

...pETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board, Rep. by its Authority 0/0 Chief Commissioner, Land Administration Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

¶14

The Tahsildar, Kondurg Mandal At Kondurg, R.R. District

¶15

...RES'ONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAIVIUS declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not disposing and^passing of the orderd on the representation dated 1910212017 in respect of land covered by Sy.No.336 and 337 of Agirala^village, Kondurg tv'landal, R.R. Dist., the then^{Mahaboobnagar} Dist., from their Records, as arbitrary, illegai, and violative of^{Art. 14} and 300-4 of Constitution^{of lndia,} consequently direct the respondent No.2 herein to^pass appropriate orders on the basis of the repoit submitted by the^respondents 3 and^{4 dated 61512019and} 23t8t2019.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151^{CPC praying} that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition.} the High Court may be^pleasedto

¶19

direct the respondent No.2^{herein to considermy representation dated} 1gl\2t2o17 forthwith.^{pending disposal of the abovewrit petition'}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI M.V.PRAVEEN KUMAR} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1,3 & 4: AGP FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI KIRANKUMAR GATLU, SC FORTBYB}

¶21

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE E.V.VENU(X)PAL

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.15O22 of 2O2O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of^the

¶26

Constitution of India, is filed seeking the^{following reliet}

¶27

o...to issue an oppropriate Writ order or direction more particularlg one in tle nature of^WRITOF MANDAMIIS declaing the action of^{tlrc respondentNo.2} in not disposing and passing of the orders on^the representation dated 19/02/2017 in respect of^land couered bg Sg.Nos.336 and 337 of Agirala^uillage, th.en Kondurg Mandal Ranga Reddg Dist *E Mahaboobnagar Dist from their Records as^arbttrary iltegat and uiolatiue of Articles 14 and^3OOA of Constitution of India consequentlg^{direct the respondent} No.2 herein to pass appropriate^{orders on the basi.s of the} report submitted bg tle respondents 3 and^{4, dated} 6/5/2019 and 23/0/2O79^{and pass..."}

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the^{petitioner herein} is the absolute owner and^possessor of agricultural^{land to} an extent of Acs. 11.06^{guntas in Sy.No.335, Acs.9.25guntas} in Sy.No.336, Acs.12.08^guntas in Sy.No.337,^Ac.l.26 guntas in Sy.No.338, Ac.O.36 guntas in Sy.No.339,^{Ac. 1.32} guntas in Sy.No.34O and^{Acs.9.39guntas} in^{Sy.No.343,total} to an extent of Acs.47.l2^guntas, situated^{at Agirala Village,}

¶29

Page 2 of6

¶30

Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said land was given by the father of the petitioner at the time of petitioner's marriage as Pasupu Kumkuma and also executed a will deed to that effect and the narne of the petitioner was also mutated in the year 1964. Since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the subject property. During the integrated survey of land records, the name of the petitioner was not updated in the revenue records in respect of the land in Sy.No.336 and 337. To that effect, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.4. It is informed that the said land is entered in the register of respondent No.2. Petitioner made a representation dated 19.O2.2OLT to respondent No.2 and there upon respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.3 uide LT.No.TBYB/C/241/18, dated lO.Ct4.2O18 seeking the ground factual report of the said survey numbers. On the said letter, respondent No.3 got enquired with respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 enquired the matter and submitted a report dated 23 -o2-2o19 in ref.No.B/LRUP/ t74 / 2o1Sto respondent No.3, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is in enjoyment and

¶31

Page 3 of6

¶32

possession of the subject property on the land gifted by her father and respondent No.3 reported the same to respondent No.2. The father of the petitioner donated an extent of Acs.21.33 guntas in Sy.Nos.336 and 337 of the very same village under a "Dana Patrika" dated 02.02.1956, the then Tahsildar has rejected the Dana Patrika dated 25.03.1964 in File No.A | /959 I 64 and the same was intimated to respondent No.2 under intimation of patwari of Agirala village uide letter dated 13.12.1965 in A1 /767 /1965. In spite of the submission of report by respondent Nos.3 and 4 to respondent No.2, in not disposing of the petitioner's representation for deleting the entry in respect of land in Sy.Nos.336 and 337 in their records and issuance of no objection for recording the narne of the petitioner in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor and issue of pattedar pass book and title is illegal, arbitrarSr, in spite of returning of original Dana Patrika, dated 02.02.1956. Some unscrupulous elements in the village are trying to encroach the land in Sy.No.336 on account of non-updation of the said Sy.No.336/1 in-new Title Deed issued by the Telangana

¶33

:-2-

¶34

Page 4 of6

¶35

Government and the petitioner is also not getting the benefits under Rythu Bandhu Scheme for non-inclusion of Sy.No.336.

¶36

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and perused the record

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the adjacent land owners are trying to encroach the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.336 on account of nonupdation of the said survey number in the new title deed issued by the Government of Telangana. He further submitted that the petitioner is old aged lady and she is not getting any benefit from the Government of Telangana because of non-entering of her narne in the revenue records. Therefore, petitioner made a representation dated 19.O2.2017 to respondent No.2. Despite receiving,

¶38

Page 5 of6

¶39

respondent No.2 has not acted upon the same. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶40

Learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner made representation long back and hence seeks to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation. upon fiting such representation, the respondent -authorities will consider the sarne and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶41

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, would submit that respondent Nos.l, 3 and 4 are formal parties.

¶42

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2 and upon filing such representation, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, by putting the petitioners and all interested parties on notice and affording them an

¶43

Page 6 of6

¶44

opportunity. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending,

¶46

shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/. M.^NAGAMANI STANT^REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE^COPY// i r, l SECTION^OFFICER \L \1 To Hvd erabad^{State of} 1. The^{Prl. Secretary Revenue Department} Yagna Board, 2. Hyderabad 3 4. 5. Telangana,^at 6 7. HvdOne erabad^{CC to} tk?TAo KUtvlAR GATLU, sc FoR rBYB toPucl 8. Two^{CD CoPies} PSK. GJPw

i.5€]-*

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/09/2025

ORDER

WP.No.15022 ot 2020

I tl E S Ia 14:
o
,lfl t0u M
t *
PA,Tc

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

\^(oP(4 f4t 'A-tt\t''

Maramraju Godamma , M.v.Goda Devi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maramraju Godamma , M.v.Goda Devi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Kavitha Vs The State of Telagana

Sasidhar Godawarthy Vs The State of Telangana

Menga Sai Baba Vs The State of Telangana

Salvaji Narasimharao Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Vunukonda Veeresham Vs State of Telangana

Vangapally Pranusha Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others