Disposed

Ramasahayam Shakuntala Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2025WP/21681/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to revenue authorities to survey and fix boundaries of agricultural land in Sy.No.90/Aou/16, her Mee-Seva application being unactioned. Revenue records showed forest in the occupancy column. The court declined to order survey, directing respondents to examine the holding claim and pass orders within six months, leaving remedies open.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramasahayam Shakuntala Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s9 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

. PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21681 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ramasahayam Shakuntala Devi, W/o. Late Ramasahayam Ramakrishna Reddy Aged 94 years, R/o. 1-2-606/801111, Plot No. 70 LIC Colony, Opp. lndira Park, VTC Hyderabad 500 080

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶13

3 The Tahsildar, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of fl/andamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting the survey and not fixed the boundaries of the petitioners agricultural lands situated in Sy No. 90/Aou/16 to an exlent of Ac.500-00 gts situated at Uppusaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District inspite of petitioners 6-A application submitted representation and requisite fee through lVlee-seva dated O1l0Bl2O2O is illegal and avoid and opposed to Article 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondents to conduct the survey and fixed the boundaries to the^petitioners land in question

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;^-cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court nri y be pleased to direct the respondents particularly 3rd respondent to conduct th: survey and fixed the boundaries of the petitioners agricultural lands situated in li, No. 90/Aou/16 to an extent of Ac.500.00 gts situated at Uppusaka Village, ! rrgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District by considering the 64 ap I cation with meeseva receipt along with representation dated 0110812020 of tl- I petitioner, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou. may be pleased to receive the Documents filed by the Petitioner i.e, 1. Khas. Pahani for the year '1954 - 55, 2. Asal Sethwar and 3. Adangal Pahanies for ttr year '1955 - 1958 to 2016 - 2017, in the Writ Proceedings pending disposal of thr:^y'y'rit Petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P V KRISHNAMACHARY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI H. RAKESH KUMAR, A( P FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUC'OPAL WRIT PETITION No.21681 of 2O2O

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri P.V.Krishnamachary,, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶27

Learned counsel lor the petitioner u,ould submit that the petitioner is the absolute ou,ner and possessor of the agricultural land situated in Sy.No.9O/Aou/ 16 to an extent of Ac.5OO.00 glrntas situaLed at Uppusaka Viliage, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadr:Ldir Kothagudem District and her name was shou,n in the revenue records as pattadar. On 08.01.2020, the petitionor has made an application through Mee Seva to the respondents to conduct survey and fix boundaries. But the re..;pondent authorities neither consider her application nor rejected Lhe same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner file,1 the present ',vrit petition.

¶28

On the other hand, ler,rned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue w-ould submit that the question of

¶29

¶30

holding land to the extent of Ac.5OO.O0 I rntas is to be examined and as seen from the pahalies s- bmitted by the petitioner, the petitioner is shown a j pattadar in Sy.No.90/Aou/ 16 and on the occupanc. <:olumn, it is shown as forest. Under these circumstanc,: ;. the question of survey in the forest does not arise and thi petitioner has ar.ty grievance, she ought to have sought rr, t:f ir-r terms of the Forest Act ald the rcspondents are not i I a position to conduct survey at this point of time.

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for the )et itioner and learned Assistant Government pleader an<l rpon verifying the Adangal/pahanies, which shows that n occupancy column/enjoyment column, the forest name r r entered, this Court does not know how ttre petitioner is i-r I ding the land of Ac.5OO.00 guntas in Sy.No.9O/Aou/16, r, ren rhe Land Ceiling Act is in force. Therefore, this ( ()url ,,vithout making any observations on the aspect of rll claim of the petitioner, deems it appropriate to direct the -:spondents to examine on the aspect of hoiding the lanc of Ac.SOO.OO guntas in the name of the petitioner and pa,.; appropriate

¶32

¶33

orders in accordance with^law as expeditiously^{as possible,} preferablv within a period of six (O6) months^{irom the date} of receipt of a copy ol this orclcr.^{Ncedlessto mention that} the petitioner is at liberty to rvorl<^{outt the remediesin} accordance with law before^the appropriate^Forum

¶34

With the above directions, this^{WritPetition is}

¶35

disposed of. There sha,ll^{be no order as to costs}

¶36

Miscellaneous applications, if^{an1', pendingshall}

¶37

also stand closed

¶38

SD/- T.SREENIVAS^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

L-//;

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue^{DepartmentSecretariat' The State of} Telangana, HYderabad

¶44

The District^{Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District}

¶45

The Tahsildar,^{Burgampahadtrrlandal, Bhadradri KothagudemDistrict}

¶46

One CC to^{SRIP V KRISHNAIMACHARY'Advocate[OPUC]}

¶47

Two CCs^to GP FOR REVENUE,^{High Courtfor the State of Telangana} touTl

¶48

Two CD^CoPies

PVL TKS

e+-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 210912025

ORDER

a.l ilrc. S
(' i'4 J a
o
(j
t n ) 1l?b

- '.f^rCt

¶55

WP.No.21681 ot 2020

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION

¶57

WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

.P{
,\r4

Ramasahayam Shakuntala Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramasahayam Shakuntala Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. P.Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mulpuri Sakkubai Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Sk Chanbi Vs The State of Telangana

Rathod Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Narender Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Bsg Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana