Partly allowed

Marupaka Anjaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Aug 2025WP/23072/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice for land acquisition and a separate stay application under Section 151 CPC. The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding a prior sale deed and G.O. 15.No.1745 within two months, with directions to refrain from dispossession and afford a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and stay application were disposed of. Respondent No. 4 directed to consider the petitioner's explanation within two months, afford an opportunity, and not dispossess the petitioner

Marupaka Anjaiah, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^{3168 ]}

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STA-TEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAO (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:230720F 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

r i st' R/o H^{N o 6- 2 -} yi:;fihi t'Wls[ Y3"[L? i1,1; At ? ?:,Jfi Ti. 3i.i,i"f n'' "''"

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1, The State^{of Telangana,Rep by Principal.Secretary' Revenue Department'}

¶12

Secretariate^{Building,Saifabad Hyderabad}

¶13

The District^{Collector, Nalgonda District'}

¶14

3.TheRevenueDivisionalofficer,NalgondaNalgondaDistrict.

¶15

The Tahsildar,^{Nalgonda Mandal NalgondaDiskict'}

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

PetitionUnderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue^{a writ, orderor direction more particularlyone in the natureof} Writ of Mandamus^{declaring the action of the RespondentsNo 4 in issuing notice} dated 25-07-2025,^{bearingNo 755 of 2025 in respect of the landin SurveyNo'} 2T0,admeasuringTGuntasrsituatedatGollagudaVillage,Nalgonda'Mandal' District as^{illegal, arbitrary and contraryto law violative of Art 19'21 and 300 A of} Constitutionoflndiaandprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandagainstdueprocessof law and consequently^{set aside the same'}

¶18

l.A.NO:1 oF 2025

¶19

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operation of notice dated 2s-07-2025, bearing No. 755 of 2025, issued by Respondent No 4 in respect of the rand in Survey No. 270, admeasuring Ac. 0-07 Guntas situated at Gollaguda Village, Nalgonda, Mandal, Nalgonda District pending disposal of writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI KIRAN pALAKURTHT

¶21

9-o^ul19l.l9lt!"^{Respondents : SRtH.SOMAIAH,} AGp FOR REVENUE (ASStcNMENT)

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

THE^{HON'BLESRI JUSTICEK' LAKSIIMAN} ITPETI^TI ON N o.23^{012 of 2025}

¶24

L oRD ER: o

¶25

Palakurlhi,^{Iearnedcounsel for the} Heard^{Sri Kiran} maiah,^{Iearned Assistant Government} petitioner^{and Sri H'So} Pleader^{lor Assignment'}

¶26

Respondent^{No'4 l'ras issued notice dated 26'06'2025} under^{Rule 3 of the TelanganaAssigned Lands (Prohibitionof} Transfers)^{Rutes' 2007 alteging that petitionerpurchased the} rand^{admeasuring0.07 guntas in survey No.270 situated at} Gollaguda^{Village'NatgondaMandal and District' under a} registered^{sale deed bearing documentNo'2084 of 2002' dated} 28.03.2022.15^{days time was granted to the petitionerto} submit^{explanationto the noticedated 26'06'2025'He has} submitted^{explanation on 01'07 '2025' Without consideringthe} t said explanation,^{respondent No'4has issued another notice} dated 25.01^{.2025 to the petitioner hereinon the very same} allegation.^{Chatlengingthe second notice,dated 25'07'2025'} pethigner filed the^{present writ petition.}

¶27

¶28

In the notice bearing No.755 of 2!25,respondent No.4 did not mention the date of the said notice. First notice dated 26.06.2025 and second notice dared 25.07.2025are verbatim same. Respondent No.4 has to consider the explanation dated 07.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner, and pass orders in accordance with law

¶29

4 In the light of the same, th rs wnt petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to consider the explanation dated 07.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner ro rhe norice dated 26.06.2025 and pass orders in accordance with law by putting the petitioner on notice and affording hirn an opportunity. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, respondent No.4 is directed hot to dispossess the petitioner from the subject propefty. Respondent No.4 shall also consider G.O.l{s.No.1745, dated 28.08.1959. Petitioner shall submit a copy of the said Government^{Order to}

¶30

respondent^{No.4 duringthe course of enquiry'}

¶31

¶32

Miscellaneous^{applications'if any pending'shall stand}

¶33

closed.^{There shallbe no order as to costs}

¶34

ISMAIL

¶35

SO'-MOHD.

¶36

DEPUTY^REG ISTRAR

¶37

//TRUE^COPY'/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

tariate^Building '

¶39

To 1.r he PrinctP^{al Secretary'RevenueDeP artment'Se} Saifabad^{Stateof Telangana at Hydera bad} onda^District

¶40

1. The District^Co llector,^Nalg cer.^{Nalgonda Nalgonda District}

¶41

ivisional^Offi

¶42

4J5 TheTheTwoTahsildar, Revenue CCs^{to GPDNFO} algR REVENonda^Mandal; UE,^High Nalgo^{Cnda District} ourt^{for theState of Telangana at} Hyd erabad IouTl Advocate tOPUCI

¶43

6 One CCtoS RI^{KIRANPALAKURTHI'} 7 Two^{CD CoPies}

¶44

SA BS

¶45

HIGH COURT

¶46

DATED:0 S1OB1hO2S

¶47

...:
/ ,v-'. i.u" ,, ,t4 t
,2.-r
21 I|JB U6
;'rl
1
r r,_rritf

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.23072 ot 202s

¶50

DISPOSING^{OF THE W.P}

¶51

WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶52

Io
fi{L
at

Marupaka Anjaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marupaka Anjaiah, v. The State of Telangana

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

Sri. Bandi Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Konatham Sathi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kesava Vayunandana Reddy Yella Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

T. Manohar Vishnoi Vs The State of Telangana

Pathi Chandrasekhar Vs The State of Telangana

Chendeti Narsi Yellaiah Vs The State of Telangana