Allowed

Kanumuri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Sept 2025WP/20245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to regularize the petitioner's plot under the Urban Land Ceiling Scheme within four weeks, overcoming technical errors in the online system and considering the petitioner's age.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to regularize the petitioner's subject property within four weeks, irrespective of the technical errors in the login system.

Kanumuri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20245 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kanumuri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, S/o. Late Kanumuri Venkatapathi Raju, fged^{6] Vears, Occupation. Business,Rtio. FlatNo.112,Kasa Ujjaini,Jayabh6ri,} Behind Big Bazaar, Kompalli, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Competent Authority, rep by its Chairman/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶13

The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Gandimaisamma Dundigal Mandal, Medchal-Matkajgiri District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.2 in not disposing the Application dt.2310312116 of the Petitioner for regularization of his Plot No.752, Block No.56, Sy.No.139, Jayabheri park situated at Kompally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District admeasuring 222 Sq.Yards as per the Scheme made in G.O.Ms.No.92, daled 26105120.l6 issued under the Provisions of the U.L.c. Act as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles '14 and 300-4 of Constitution of India and opposed to the Scheme provided under G.O.tMs.No.92 and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to issue the Regularisation Proceedings to the Petitioner herein in respect of plot No.752,

¶17

Block No.56, Sy No.139, Jayabheri Park situated .t Kompaily Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-tvlalkajgiri District.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section^'1 51 cpc praying that'in the c rr lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor 1 may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 herein to immediately dispo;e of the Application dated 2310312016 of the Petitioner to regularize his plot 1..7s2, Block No.56, Sy.No.139, Jayabheri Park situated at Kompally Village, )rthbullapur tVlandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District admeasuring 222 Sq.yards rs per the Scheme enacted under the G.O Ms.No.92, dated 2610512016, per 1i.rg disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU

¶21

counser for the Res pondenrs : itJ;lllEi?5HHt[i*, .

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.2O24S OF 2O2L

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is hled seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2"a respondent in not disposing of the petitioner's application dated 23.O3.2016 for regularization of Plot No.752, Block No.56, ln Sy.No.139, Jayabheri Park, situated at Kompally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property), under the Scheme provided 1n G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 26.O5.2016, issued under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, as illega1, arbitraqr, violative of Articles 14 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India, and contrar5r to the Scheme under G.O.Ms.No.92; ald consequently, to direct the 2nr respondent to issue regularization proceedings in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue

v-!

Page 2 of8

l,earne d counsel for the petitioner subn-it:ed that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor o'the subject property, having purchasecl it through a regist,,r.:d sale deed bearing Document No.2979 of 2015, dated 11 rl'i.2015. The vendor of the petitioner had earlier purchi: scd the said property through a registered sale deed beari^'r11 Document No.2Ol24 of 2006, dated 23.09.2006.

¶35

¶36

He submits that, in order to construct a residential house, the petitioner approached the GHMC r .r_ thorities. It was at that time that the petitioner came to It n;w that the subject property had been declared as excess li.n I under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and had been vt s,.ed in the Government

¶37

Upon approaching the ULC authorities, I [.r : petitioner was informed that the Government I z.d issued G.O.Ms.No.92, Revenue (ULC) Departnr.lr Lt, dated 26.O5.2016, permitting regr-rlarization of plots ::r.rrchased by individuals in excess vacant land under tl c ULC Act. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted tl. r: requisite \

¶38

Page 3 o[E

¶39

application for regularization of the subject property with the 3.a respondent

¶40

The 3.a respondent issued a demand notice dated 30.07.2016, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,9O,274.84 Ps ald to submit the challan receipt to the 4tr' respondent/TaJlsildar. The petitioner paid the said amount through cha_llan dated 29.0g.2016 and. submitted it to the 4th respondent. However, despite compliance, there was no response from the 4th respondent.

¶41

7 . Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application dated 19.02.2018 before the 2^d respondent, who in turn addressed a letter to the HMDA and the Commissioner, GHMC, stating that the District Level Committee had approved the petitioner,s application and requested them to submit their report.

¶42

The petitioner also submitted further representations dated 25.08.2018 and l2.Og.2OIg to the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Malkajgiri, requesting regularization of his plot under G.O.Ms.No.92.

¶43

t)age 4 of8

¶44

Vide Letter No.El l750 /2O2O, dated 07.{)',t 2O2O, the Collector, Medchal-Ma-lkaj giri District, requestt: 1 the Special Chief Secretary arld Chief Commissioner for Land Administration to rectify the technical errors so :r.r.i to process the petitioner's application. However, there I Le s been no response from the respondent authorities.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner further :;.rbmits that the petitioner, a senior cilizen aged over 70 yei::.;, has been forced to run from pillar to post. However, despi :e paying the amount demanded by the 4th respondent, his p ot has not been regularized till date

¶46

On the other hald, the learned Assistalr.^(iovernment Pleader, representing the learned Governmen Pleader for Revenue, produced written instructions from the Tahsildar/4th respondent stating that the petitioner's application for regularization of the subject )r,lperty has been assigned Application No. TSULCRO2 16Ottt"l2rO". ,. submits that during the initial enquir', , the 2"d respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) :^, jected the petitioner's application on the ground that the p,rtitioner had

¶47

Page 5 ofE

¶48

not submitted the link documents, and the matter was accordingly forwarded to the Joint Collector login for further processing. However, the petitioner has since submitted all the requisite link documents ald thereby perfected his title over the subject property.

¶49

1 1. He further submits that on O4.12.2OI9, it was proposed to recommend the petitioner's application from the Joint Collector login; however, at Point No.7 of the scrutiny check memo, the radio button options for 'Recommended' and 'Not Recommended' were disabled, due to which the application could not be processed. The said technical issue was brought to the notice of the concerned technical tearn at the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) ofhce for recti{ication. He also submits that upon verification through the RDO login, the application is currently available under the "scrutiny" option. However, at Point No.6 of the scrutiny check memo, the default status shows 'Not Recommended' and there is no provision enabled to change the status to 'Recommended'.

¶50

Pagc 6 of8

¶51

12 - Learned Assistalt Government Pleader^li )r Revenue further submits that a letter has been addrr sred by the District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, tc, the CCLA requesting resolution of the issue and enabling ,l e provision to select 'Recommended' or 'Not Recommendetl^' n both the RDO login and Joint Collector login to faci it rte further processing of the application. He submits that- once the technical issue is resolved, the petitioner's appl.:; tion will be processed for regularization of the subject 1;-c perty, and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the wri' oetition as premature.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the l^:r1 itioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for '.evenue,^and upon perusal of the material piaced before this^Court, particularly the written instructions produced b" -he learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner submitted a r application on 23.03.2016 for regularization of the subject p'operty. He has duly paicl the amount demanded through -lrallan, and the same was accepted by the competent author'l,l'. Howev.er,

¶53

Pagc 7 of8

¶54

as submitted by the learned Assistalt Government Pleader, due to a technical error in the RDO login as well as the Joint Collector login, the petitioner's application could not be processed.

¶55

In light of the above discussion, and considering that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged over 70 years, the 2.d respondent is directed to take necessa-ry steps to regularize the petitioner's subject property as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, irrespective of whether the technical issue is rectihed or not, provided there are no serious legal objections pending against such regularization.

¶56

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶57

¶58

t-P. PONNA HNA ST GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Principal^{Secretary, Revenue Department,S} c tariat, State of Telangana, HYderabad.

¶59