Disposed

Smt. Thota Shyamala , Chanti Sammakka v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jan 2025WP/16857/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting her application to change land classification from Laoni Patta to Patta Land, citing procedural irregularities. The court set aside the order and directed re-examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.11.2022 set aside; respondent directed to re-examine application within three months.

Smt. Thota Shyamala , Chanti Sammakka Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO 16 857 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Thota Shyamala @ Chanti Sammakka, Wo. Balaiah @Balajllndian, Aged.63 years, Rl/o. H. N o.4-69 1 491 H1 4, Saraswathi Nagar. Karimnagar.

¶9

.....PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary (Revenue Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

¶13

Tahsildar, Kataram Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of 2nd Respondent vide REV/E2IDRNI/LNC/0001i2021-SUPD (E-Sep) dated.26l1112022, as ifiegat nuil void arbitrary and consequentially direct the Respondents to change the classification of land in the Revenue records from Laoni Patta to Patta Land.

¶16

i.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition Under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of 2nd Respondent vide PEV/E2IDRNI/LNC/0001/202i-SUPD (E-Sep) dated.2611112022, pending disposal the present writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER

¶19

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No .16857 of2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

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

¶24

"...1o rssue an appropriate Wit, order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Wfi of Mandamus d.eclaing the ord.er of 2nd Responde nt uide REV/ E2/ DRNI/ LNC/ 0O0 I / 202 t -SUqD (E Sep) dated_ 26-11-2022, cts tllegaL nttll uoid arbitrary and cansequentiallV d.irect the Respondents to change the classif.cation of land in the Reuenue records from^{Laoni Patta} to^patta Land.-.."

¶25

It is thc case ol the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.2_05 guntas in Sy.No. 191 and Ac.3-13 gts in Sy.No. 192, situated at Dhanwada village, Kataram Mandal, Jaishankar Bhupalpally District and she was also issued pattadar passbook bearing No. 142g5 with Khata No.759. It is further case of the petitioner that even though the subject lands are patta lands and she is in possession of the same since long time, the revenue authorities erroneously recorded as Shivai Jamabandi in sethwar. It is the case of the petitioner that seeking correction of entries in the revenue records with regard to classification of land, she submitted Application No.22OOI22OS3 Or,.d l4JO.2O22 on the file of respondent No.2 but the respondent No.2 relied on Lhe erroneous report submitted by the respondent

No.3 and rejected the^{application vide order d.ated 26'll '2022 in} REV/E2lDRNI/LNC/0001/2021-SUPD^{(E-Sep)' Hence the writ} petition.

¶30

Sri S. Ganesh, learned^{counsel for the petitionerhas submitted} that even though^{petitioner is in possessionof the subject lands and} was issued pattadar^{passbookbearing No'14285with Khata No'759'} the respondent^{No.3 withoutverifying the records properly'has} submitted a^{report to the respondent No'2statingthat the natureof} land in the Dharani^{Portal is recordedas LaoniPatta' It is further} submitted that^{oncepattedarpassbook has been issued in favour of} the petitioner^{under the provisionsof the Telangana Rights in Land} and Pattedar^{PassbooksAct,197 l,the respondent-authoritiesare} not having^{powerto uniiaterallychange the classification of the land} intheDharaniPortaiorrefusetoissueanewpattadarpassbook under the^{provisionsof the TelanganaRights in Land and Pattadar} Passbooks Act,^{2O2O (for short, "ROR Act,2O2O"l 'The learned} counsel further^{arguedthat the respondentNo 2 failed to take into} considerationthedocumentssubmittedbythepetitionerand erroneously^{rejected her application videimpugned order dated} 26.11.2022.^{Therefore, the learnedcounsel prayed this Court to set} aside the impugned^{order and direct the respondentauthoritiesto}

I I

issue new pattadar passbook to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the ROR Act,2O2O.

¶36

A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 26.11.2022, passed by respondent No.2, reveals that pursuant to the petitioner's application dated 14.1O.2022, the respondent No.2 has called for a report from the respondent No.3. In response, the respondent No.3, has submitted report dated 25.11.2022, stating that on verification of the revenue records and old Pahanies, the nature of the land was recorded as Laoni Patta, and the petitioner's name was recorded as pattadar for the subject lands. It is also stated that the nature of the land in the Dharani Portal was recorded as Laoni Patta. Basing on the report of the respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 rejected the petitioner's request for re-classification of the land and refused to change the land type in the revenue records. There is no mention in the impugned order that the respondent No.2 has independently examined the records or considered the documents submitted by the petitioner belore errriving at such decision.

¶37

In view of the above, it appears that the respondents have failed to consider the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of her claim. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.11.2022, passed by the respondent No.2, is set aside and the respondent No.2 is directed to re-examine the petitioner,s application

t t

dated 14.1O.2022, in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar passbooks Act, 202O duly taking into consideration the documents enclosed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order, and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Accordingly, this Writ^petition is disposed of

¶43

As a seque l, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if an.1,, shall

¶44

stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶45

SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSI T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department), Secretariat, State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶50

The District Collector, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

¶51

The Tahsildar, Kataram Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally^District.

¶52

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

¶53

One CC to SRI S.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CD Copies

CAK

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210112025

ORDER

.\ tlE STAT€ o^
'r
I f,.? t
I
L.,,j 12 FtB 2025
<br>.<br>
Y,+
oE SPAT

WP.No.16857 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

.f#

Smt. Thota Shyamala , Chanti Sammakka v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Thota Shyamala , Chanti Sammakka 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmannagari Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

V. Hanumanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mendu Narsimha Reddy Vs State of Telangana

T L Mahender Goud Vs The State of Telangana And 8 Others

Gojja Nagesh Vs The State of Telangana and 9 others

Saraff Govindnath Rao Vs The State of Telangana