Disposed

Cheruku Bichaiah and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC9 Sept 2025WP/17996/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Hyderabad filed a writ petition seeking mutation of property rights over agricultural land. The petitioners claimed inheritance rights challenging a prior sale. The respondentRevenue official alleged an existing sale and succession registration. The Court directed the officials to expedite consideration of the petition representation without adjudicating on the merits of the disp

What did the court decide?

Direction to official respondents to consider the petitioners' representation dated 01.10.2020 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

Cheruku Bichaiah and 2 others Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[32ee I

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17996 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Cheruku Bichaiah, S/o. Cheruku Madava Swamy, Age.50 years, Occ.Business, rlo. 3-70, Malakajigiri, Hyderabad - 500 O47.

¶9

Cheruku Saibabu, S/o. Cheruku lVladava Swamy, Age. 45 years, Occ. Employee, rlo.3-7O, Malakajigiri, Hyderabad - 500 047.

¶10

Cheruku Bala Swamy (Died), Rep. by his wife Cheruku Rukkanamma, W/o.Balaswamy,Age. 5B years, Occ. Housewire, H.No.10-43(1), Patha Ramalayam, Deverakonda, Nalgodna District, T.S.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, rep, by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Collector, Nagar Kurnool, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶15

3 The lvlandal Revenue Officer, Achampet, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶16

4 The Thasildhar, Lingala Mandal, Nagar Kurool, [t/ahaboobnagr District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 declare the in action of the Respondents 2 to 4 herein are not to initiating the action against the Petitioner's representation dated O111012020 without considering representation for mutation of property to the present petitioners of the deceased parents of the present petitioners by the Respondent No. 2 to 4 herein is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or directions to consider the representation consequently mutate the property in survey Nos.

¶19

'100/33 to an extent of Ac.7-08 guntas situated at Avusa i unta village, Lingala Mandal. l\rlahaboobnagar now its known as NagarKurnool [) ]trici

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under section 15'l cPC praying that in the iircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co - 1 may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to consider the representa: rn dated 01l1ol2o2o filed by the petitioner's consequently to pass an appropri : e order or orders of the petitioners representation.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI DANTU VENKATA RAMAI! A SARMA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SANDEEp GOUD, AGp :OR GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.17996 oF 2O2L

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relie f/s:-

¶29

".-. to declare the in action of the^RespondeDts 2 to⁴ herein are^not to initiating the action against thc Pctitioner's representation dated O1.1O.2O2O $,ithout considering rcprcscntarion for mutation of property to the present petitioners of the^(leceased parcnts of the present petitioners b_' the Respon(lcnt No.2 to 4 hcrein is illegal, arbitrary and contrar-v to tl)e provisions of larv bv rssuing a Writ of Mandamus or anv othcr appropriate orcler or <lirections to consider the representation consequentlv nrrrtate tht' prol)crtY in sttrvey Nos. 100/33 to an extent of Ac.7 08 gtintas situatcd at Avtlsarlkunta village, Lingala Mandal, Mahaboolrnagar now rts known as NagarKurnool District and^pass sttch other or l-urther orders..."

¶30

Heard Mr.Dantu Venkata Ramana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sandeep Goud, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are own brothers and their father and mother had expired on 29.05.1997 and 04.O2.2017 respectively. He states that the petitioners have submitted a representation dated Ol.lO.2O2O before respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking to transfer Acs.7.O8 gts of agricultural land in survey No.100/33 at A','usalikunta Viliage, Lingala Mandal in their names by enclosing the copiee of death certificates of their parents and the same is

¶32

¶33

pending consideration till date. Relying on the pattadar adangal/pahani copy dated 14.05.2017 issucri bv respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners'father, he sc.eli: thc indulgence of this Court to direct the official respondents dispose of the said represenlation and pass appropriate orders

¶34

4 . Learned Assistant Government Pleadr',- for R.evenue furnished thc copv of written instructions p i ssccl orrto thc learned Covernment Pleader for levenuc L.l

¶35

Tahsildar/ respon den t No.4. For bette.r understar:r ing, Para Nos.2 and 3 of the said \,ritten instructions are extract(' I as r-ruder:-

¶36

" In this rcgard it is submitted that, as per l.hc r lr .llcation of Revenue Records the land bearing Sy.No. 1OO/3il | )tirl c.\tcnt Ac.l4-16 gts in the name of Madhava Slamtz cxrr rt Ar:.7-0u gts, Eeraya extent Ac.3-OOgts, Kondarah exterrt^r..4-0ti gts situated at Ar-usalikunta village and Sri.Madhavrr lrvanrl has soid his slrare to Sri. Parnbali Ramulu S/o Balairrir i as errtcrc(l in the old ROR and New ROR in Sy.No. I OO/33 to r r extcnt of Ac. 7 O8gts through simple sale dced.

¶37

Further it rs submrtted that, after the clemisr: I Panrb:rli Ramulu S/o Balaiah the then Tahsildtrr Ling:rl \ anrli..l hns grant succession in favour of legal heirs namell. i i. Paml;ali balasrvamy to arr extent of Ac. 7-O8gts rn Sy.Nr>. I )0/13.j anci also issut'd PPB /TDs Situated at Arrrsalikunt:r 'ilJagc r,idc procgs No. C12196/2OOI dated, 21.O4.2O03. But (l ( sanrc \'as not implernentecl in Revenue Recor<ls and as per 1,r al crrrluirv the legal herrs are in possession of the land".

¶38

He subn'rits that the fattrer of the petition ' s had sold the

¶39

subject propertv Lo one Pamba-li Rarnulu and tl'tr tht: petitioners

¶40

have no right or title over the said property- Thr: r:fore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶41

¶42

¶43

Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court without making anv observations on the merits or demerits of the case, is inciined to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the official respondents to consider the representation dated Ol.lO.202O submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiousl_y as possible. No costs.

¶44

Miscellaleous Petitions, pending if any, sha1l stand closed.^{^}

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

Sd/.G.JYOTHI A ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

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

¶49

2- The Collector, Nagar Kurnool, [\rlahaboobnagar District.

¶50

3- The lvlandal Revenue Officer, Achampet, Nagarkurnool, lvlahaboobnagar District.

¶51

The Thasildhar, Lingala Mandal, Nagar Kurool, [t/ahaboobnagr District.

¶52

One CC to SRI DANTU VENKATA RAMANA SARMA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

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

¶54

Two CD Copies

BSR PMK

(n-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910912025

ORDER

WP.No.17996 of 2021

2z;---'-:-^'
'. -,,?. - '-: i''-:
.
,// c.
l' i)
,:-
04 r-i irffi
\i\ :/

¶62

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (v *r;lr:---l>\u"

Cheruku Bichaiah and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheruku Bichaiah and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Kalidasu Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

Anjum Pervez Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Kalluri Kanakamma Vs The State of Telangana

Kona Naveen Vs The State of Telangana

Pathuri Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Smt.Thumrugoti Mangamma Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others