Dismissed¶36

Amancherla Rajashekar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Sept 2025WP/20285/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation of name in revenue records for 22.27 acres in Mediaplli Village. During hearing, counsel for petitioner submitted that the cause of action no longer survives as respondents have addressed the grievance. All parties concurred. Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner acknowledges that the purpose of the petition has been addressed by the official respondents ¶33-36

Amancherla Rajashekar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32se l

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20285 OF 2022

¶7

Between

¶8

Amancherla Rajashekar, S/o. Lale A. Narasimha Rao, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, lndian, R/o. H. No. 2-52-1 149/1, Tirumala Enclave Apartment, Now Presently residing at New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, 500044.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, .

¶12

2 The District Collector, Rangareddy, O/o D. No. 6-2-10, Lakdikapul Road, at Lakdikapul.

¶13

J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella at Rangareddy District.

¶14

4 The Tahsildar cum joint sub-registrar, Moinabad, Rangaredddy 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 an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents in not mutating the petitioner name and petitioner Family member name in the revenue records for the Sy. No. 821N2, 89lAl, 891A212, 90/A2, 90/AA, 901E212, 911A, 911M, 911E2, 91lEE, 921A2, 92tAA1 , 92tEE1, 92tEE2, 93/A, 93/A, 93/E1, 93/EE1, 93/EE2 and 95/AA admeasuring of 22.2700 Acres situated at Mediaplli Village, lvloinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of rights guaranteed by the constitution of lndia

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir .-umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoLrr may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and dispose rf the representation dated 07.04.2022 made by the petitioner, pending dispc s al of the above writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH VENKAT RAMAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4:SRl G. CHANDRAi :KHAR, AGP FOR REVENUE REPREI ENTING FORGP FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel for the Proposed Respondent No. 5: Ms. ESHA, fl :PRESENTING FOR SRI K.VEt\t MADHAV

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.2O285 OF 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution

¶29

of India seeking the following reiief/s:

¶30

"... to issue an ordcr or orders more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus, by declaring the action o[ the respondents in not mutating Lhe pelitioner famrly members name in the revenue records for the Sy.No.82/A/2, 89lAt, 891A2 /2, 90 /A2, 90 lAA, 90 /82/2, S1 / A,, 9r I AA, 9t /82,9r /EE, 921 A2, 92/AAr,92/tEt, 92/8E2, 931A, 93/A, 93/Er, 93/EEr, 93/EE2 and^gslAA admeasuring of 22.27OO Acres situate.l at Mediaplli Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddv District rs illegal, arbitrary and violation of rights guaranteed by the constitution of India, and pass such other order or orders ..."

¶31

Heard Mr.CH.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioner appearing on-line, Mr.G.Chandrasekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing Iearned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms.Esha, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Venu Madhav, Iearned counsel for proposed respondent No.5.

¶33

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive as the purpose of this Writ Petition has been addressed by official respondents. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition as infructuous

¶34

¶35