Disposed

Mangali Ravi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Sept 2025WP/26469/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation of agricultural land in Peelaram village based on a registered Gift Settlement Deed and issuance of pattadar passbooks; the RDO had not acted on his online applications. On the Government Pleader's undertaking, the court disposed of the writ directing the RDO to decide the applications within sixty working days.

What did the court decide?

RDO directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's online mutation applications with reasoned orders within 60 working days; no costs.

Mangali Ravi Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ I

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26469 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

lr/angali Ravi, S/o lt/angali Shyamaiah @ Ramulu, lndian, Aged about⁴² years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o H.No.2-39, Peelaram village, Kothuru Mandal. Vikarabad District - 501 10'1 .

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr.B. R.Ambedkar Bhavan, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The District Collector, Vikarabad District

¶13

J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vrkarabad, Vikarabad District.

¶14

4 The Tahasildar, Kothuru lrzlandal, Vikarabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue any approprrate Writ, Order or direction more particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of [,'landamus declaring the action^{of the Respondents in not} considering the Representation dated.23112l2O24 by^{payment of mutation} charges vide Chalan Nos.PMtM2500019019,^{No.PIt/1V2500010351'} No.PMlr/25000 10352 for mutation of agricultural land^{in Sy.No.68/,4to an extent} of Ac.1-08 gts. Sy.No.68/AA to an extent^{of Ac.1-07gts.,Sy.No.'108/AAto an} extent of Ac.O-05 gts., total extent Ac.02-20^{gts.,situatedat Peelaram village,} Kothuru Mandal,Vikarabad District and for^{issuance of Pattadar Pass book in} favour of Petitioner, as illegal, null, void and arbitrary

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the} ';^{'cumstances statedtn} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Col 1 maybe pleasedto} direct the Respondents to consider the^{Representation ( ated.2.3-12-2024by} payment of mutation charges vide Chalan^{lios.Plvll,42500019019,} No.PlVIV250001O351 ,^No. Ptt/1tV2500010352^{for mutation} '^{f agriculturalland tn} Sy.No.68iA to an extent of Ac.1-08^gts., Sy.No.68/4A^{to arr} -'xtent^{of Ac-1-07 gts,} Sy.No.108/AA to an extent of Ac.O-05^{gts., total extent Ao )2-20 gts., situatedat} Peelaram village, Kothuru [/andal,Vikarabad^{District, p': rding disposalof the} above writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. M SARITHA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. RAVINDER,^{AGP F( R REVENUE} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

4-T7

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.26469 of 2o25

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitionerand}

¶27

Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government^{Pleader lbr Rcvcnue} for the respondents

¶28

Tl-rc petitioner herein is claiming that he^{isthc absolutc} owncr- itnd possessor of the land^{admez'rsuringAc.1.O8gurltasin} Sy.No.68/A, Ac. 1.07 guntas in^{Sy.No.68/AA and Ac.O.OS guntasin} Sy.No.1O8/AA; total admeasuring^{Acs.02.2O guntas situated at} Peelaram Village, Kothuru Mandal,^{VikarabadDistrict onthe} strength of the registered Gift Settlement^{Deed bearingdocument} No.1167 ot 1988, dated 3O.06.1988. He^{has submitted online} applications uide challan^{Nos.PMM25O0010352, PMM2500010350,} PMM2SOOO 10351 and PMM25000^{19019 belore rcspondentNo.3} with a request to mutate his name and issue e^{pattadarpassbooks} in his favour. Despite receiving^{and. acknowledgingthe said onlinc} applications, respondent No.3 did not act^{upon thesamc.} Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent^{No.3, the petitioner} filed thc present writ petition.

¶29

¶30

Wl'rereas, learned Assistant Governrnent P1t:rr,,cr^{for Revcnue,} on instructions, rvould submit that respondent^{N(.il'r,r'ill consider} the said online applications slrbmitted by th(^{petltionerand} dispose of the same in accordance with iaw.

¶31

In the light of thc said submissions, the ,r'rit petrl,inn is disposed ol rlirccting responclent No.3 to cortside r iincl disprosc of the aforr:said onlinr: applications submittcd by tl^r pet i lioncr r.ride challan Nos. PMM25OO0 10352, Pt\ M2500010350, PMM25O001035l and PMM25O0019O19 and^p; ss appropriate or<.lers in:rccordance wilh lzrrt,. If rcspondent No^I is not incline d to accept thc rccluesl made by the pctitioner, he,; rirll pass orders assigning s1;ecific rcasons at-rcl communicatc a colr of the srrne to the petitioncr. He shall complcte Lhe entire^ex ::cise witirin a pcriod ol sixt1, (60) working days lrom the date of^r :ceipt of a copy of this order. There shall bc no order as to costs.

¶32

a sequel, the misccllaneous applications, iI any, pe r-rcling in this writ petilion shall stancl closed.

¶33

SD/- lr SREENIVASA REDDY A,^{J;ISTANT REGISTRAR}

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr t .R.Ambedkar Bhavan, Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶38

2 The District Collector, Vikarabad District J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, Vikarabac )istrict. 4 The Tahasildar, Kothuru [r,,4andal, Vikarabad District. One CC to SRl. lV SARITHA Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

6 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,High Court for rf 3 State of Telangana. lourl

¶40

7 Two CD Copies

PVL TKS

,-.8

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310912025

ORDER

( ) .!HE S T4Ie
oo
I 5 t/ l\R 2tl26
\t
I2
*
() *
io1-. q

¶47

WP.No.26469 of²⁰²⁵

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

Mangali Ravi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangali Ravi 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

Mala @ Parnati Ramulamma Vs The State of Telangana

K. Om Prakash Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. G. Yadamma Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Vontela Jalapathi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Puli Annapurna Vs The State of Telangana

Suragoni Devanna Goud Vs The State of Telangana