Kendre venkati Vs The State of telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^High Court^maybe pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the^{respondentsin consideringthe} application vide No 2500014464 dated^16.08.2025 and^{representationdated} 25.8.2025 for deletion of the land in survey^{No. 8 extentAc 5.13 gts situatedat} Keli Bujurg village, Kerameri mandal,^{Komuram bheem asifabad District from the} list of prohibited properites as arbitrary^{and illegal and consequentlydirect the} respondents to consider the application^{No. 2500014464 dated/6.8.2025 and to} delete the above land from the^{prohibited list.}

¶17

-/

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANAND BOINI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGp FOtt REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I ,

¶22

t ,

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.2 7464 of 2025

¶25

ORAL ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶27

The Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.5-13 guntas in Sy.No.S, situated at Keli Buj urg Vitlage, Kerameri Mandal, Komuram Bheem Asifabad District. In proof of the same, he has filed copies of the latest passbook and title deeds. The said property is mentioned in the list of prohibitory properties. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted an online application bearing No.2500014464, dated 16.08.2025, to respondent No.2, with a request to delete the said property fiom the list of prohibitory properties. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No,2, the petitioner has frled the present writ petition.

¶28

Whereas, the learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.2 will

i I

ill

2

I

consider the application submitted by the petitioner strictly m accordance with law

¶34

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this \t/rit petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider arLd dispose of the application bearing No. 2500014464, dated 16.08.20:l_5, submitted by the petitioner with a request to delete the subject properfy from the list of prohrbitory properties, strictly in accordance with law, by putting the petitioner and all the interest parties on notice and affording thenr an opportunity. If respondent No.2 i: r-Lot inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall pa;s appropriate order assigning specific reasons and communicate a copy of the same to the petitioner. However, he shall complete the said exercise within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of rr copy of this order.^'fhere shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pendin6l, if any, shall

¶36

stand closed.

¶37

SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY /Ab,s rt[ANr REGISTRAR 1i I ' \I^_-:-- - //TRUE COPY// I t..r,o* oFFtcER

¶38

To

¶39