Disposed

Thatipally Sanjeeva Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Sept 2025WP/27583/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two pattadar brothers sought mandamus directing authorities to extend Rythu Bandhu Scheme benefits for their agricultural lands in Karimnagar district despite representations to the Agricultural Extension Officer. The court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to file a detailed representation within eight weeks and directed respondent No.4 to consider it within twelve weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thatipally Sanjeeva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^32se l

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E,V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27583 OF 2022

¶7

Between

¶8

1 Thatipally Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, Age- 66 years, OccAgriculture, R/o. Bommanapalh Vrllage, Chrgurum'amidi Mandal. Karimnagar District.

¶9

2 Thatipally Linga Reddy, S/o Veera Reddy, Age- 62 Years, Occ Agriculture. R/o Bornmanapalh Vil[age, Chigurumamidi It/andal, Karimnagar Distiict.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar

¶14

The Tahsildar, Chigurumamidi lvlandat, Chigururhamidi Proper and t/andal, Karimnagar District.

¶15

q f1.," Agricultural Extension Officer, Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate rvrit declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not extending the benefits under Rythu Bandhu Scheme to the petrtroners to thetr extents of agricultural lands i.e. admeasuring Ac. 0.0375 gts, in Sy. No. 8Alcll , Ac. 0 0250 gts in Sy. No. 255tBt3/1 and Ac.^'1.35 gts in Sy No 4531414, totaling to an extent of Ac. 2.0125 gts, of the petitioner No. 1, and land admeasuring Ac 5.15 gts in Sy. No. 36/4, Ac. 1 34 gts in Sy. No. 453/'l , totaling to Ac. 7.09 gts, of the petitioner No 2, situated at Bommanapally Village, Chtgurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar Distrrct even though they are entitled for the same. considering therr representations dated 28-05-2O22, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violatrve of principles of natural justice and also

¶18

violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitutron of lnd a (:)onsequently direct the respondent;rutlrorrties to consider the representations r;1 the petitioners dated 28O5-2O22 anct extend the benefits under Rythu Bandhr Scheme for their above shown agricultu ral lands IA NO:'l OF 2022

¶19

Petitic,n Under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in ti-., (-trcumstances stated in the affidavit frlerd in support of the petition, the High C curt nray be pleased to direct the respondent authoritres to consrder the rep res€r n t,,rtio ns of the petitioners daled 28lotl2O??. and extend the Rythu Bandhu S.)reme Benefits to the petitioners for therr respective lands i.e., admeasuring r\r; 0.0375 gts, in Sy. No 8A/c/1, Ac. 0 0250 gts rn Sy No 255lBt3l1 and Ac. 1 llr, q15 in Sy No. 4S3t4tA, totaling to iln extent of Ac 2 0125 gts, of the peiriloner No^.l , and land admeasuring Ac 5 15 gts in Sy. No 36/4, Ac 1.34 gts rr Sy. No 453/l totaling to Ac 7 09 gts, of the petrtioner No. 2, srtuated a1 Iiomrlranapally Village, Chigurumam id i l\rlandal, Ka rrmnagar District

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl, K VENUMADHAV

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:AGP FOR AGRICULI URE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.27583 of 2o22

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

TIrrs Writ Petition, under Article 226 oI tl'rc

¶27

Constitu[ion of Indi:r, is lilcd seeking t[-re following relief

¶28

",... ,o r.s-sur: an order or directtort ntore pafiicularL4 orrct irr lhe nalure of tttt'it of rnanc)arrLus or any other opl)ropiclte utrit cleclctnrrcl the at:tiort oj the respondenl arrthorilres bt rrct exLettd Lq the Ix:rte.Jits ttnder Rrythtt Llattrlltt Sclrcrtte to Llu' petitionp,.s f o tlrcir exlents of aclntultura.l ktncls i.e. rtrlnteasururq Ac.0.O375 q(.s irt. Sy.No.8A/ c/ 1, At:.O.0250 qts in Sa.No.255/ U/ li/ I ctnd Ac. 1-35 gts irt Sy.No.453/4/A, totaling to an extent of Acs.2.O 125 (/l.s of llrc pelilictru:r Aro. .l uncl Lcurcl adrneasuring zic-s.5. l5 gt-s ln Sy.No.36/A, Ac.1.31 qts in Sy. No.453/ 1, totctltng b Acs.7.09 gts of the petitiotrcr No.2 situated at BomnLettapally Village, Chigururnamidi Mandcrl, Karinurct-gar DLstrict euert thouqh tltey are entitlecl for the sante cctrtsideting their representatiorts dated 28.O5.2022 is notlting but arbilrary illegal ttull and uoid artd uiolatiue of prurctples of ttctturctl jtLstice curcL aLso uiolatiue of ArticLes 14 tutd 21 of llu: Cortstitttlion of Inclict ConsequentLq rlirect tllc respottdent euthorities to cortsider the represen|a|ions of tLLe peti|iotTers clate.d 28.05.2022 and extetLd tlrc benefits uttder Rytltu tsctndhu Scheme for their aboue sltorun agicultural lancls and to pass.... "

¶29

Leamed coLtnsel apl)cerring lor the petitione rs would submit that petitioner No.l is tl'rc absolute o'vncr and ln possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.O.0375 gts Sy-No.8A/c/ 1, Ac.O.O25O gts in Sy. No.255/ B/3/ 1 ancl

¶30

I':rgc 2 cr[-l

¶31

Ac. 1.35i gts tn Sy.No.453/a/A, totaling r,o an extent of Acs.2.0125 gts, situated at Bomrnanaprall,r, Village, Chigurrrmamidi Manclal, Kar-imnagar Distr-i,.lt. Pctitioner No.2 is the brother ol petitioner No" 1 arlrl rllso absolutc ln olvner and possessor of land admcasuring .\r's.5.15 gts Sy.No.316lA, Ac. 1.34 gts tn Sy.No.a53/ 1,^, otaling to an exlent of Acs.7.09 gts situated at Bornmarerpally Villagc, Chigun-rmamidi Mandal, Kar-irnnagar District

¶32

Lt:arned counsel furthei- submittecl th:ri. cven thougl'r the petitioners are pattadars, owncrs and p,x;sessors of the subject lalds ar-ld cven thougl-r they are , u titled to the benefits under Rythu Bandhu Schemc, t rrr rcspondent authorities are not extending thc samc 56 1{1,- pctitioners The petitioners made representations olt )a.O5.2022 to responclent No.4. Desplte recciving, rcsportrlr:nt No.4 has noL act<:d upon the same. Hence, the present rr:rit petition

¶33

L<:arned Assistant Govcrnment Pleader [.rr- Rer,,enue, for responclent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that Lhe petitioners without making any applicatior-r to respolt(l.rn1. No.4 have rushed to this Court at a prcmature stage. l[-he matter is

¶34

l'a.qc 3 of 3

¶35

pending before respondent No.4, urho is the competcnt authority. If petitioners make representation to respondent No.4, respondent No.4 ri,ill consicler the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance r.vith lau,

¶36

In the light of the above lacts and circumstanccs of the case, this Writ Petition is clisposed o[, 5Jrar-rting libcrty to Lhc petitioners to file dctailed representation to respondent No.ul within a period of eight (08) r.r,ccks frorn thc date ol receipt of a copy o[ this order- On filing suc]'r rcprL'sentation, respondcnt No.4 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictlv in accordance urith lau, within a period of 12 weeks thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a scquel, misccllancous petitions, if any, pending,

¶38

shall stand closed

¶39

SD/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, T.S.,Hyderabad

¶44

2 The District Collector, Karimnagar Distrrct, Karimnagar 3. The Tahsildar, Chigurumamrdi lVlandal, Chigurumariidi proper and t,4andal, Karimnagar District.

¶45

The Agricultural Extension Officer, Chigurumamrdi Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶46

One CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OpUC]

¶47

Two COs to^{GP FORREVENUE ,High Court for the :]tate of Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUTI

¶48

7 Two CCs to^{GPFOR AGRICULTURE'Hrgh Court for the State of Telangana'} at Hyderrabad [OUT]

8 Two Ct)^CoPies

B tVI ?t BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:02 10912025

', :.
,j
;15 s6r 295 r

¶54

ORDER

¶55

WP.No.27583 of 2022

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOt.}T COSTS tl ia^{L</sup> (-,/}

Thatipally Sanjeeva Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Thatipally Sanjeeva Reddy 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

Sama Gopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Chekuri Shekar Vs The State of Telangana

Desineni Sri lakshmi Vs The state of telagana

A. Raghavender Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sree Balaji Nagar Residents Welfare Society Vs The State of Telangana

Rohit Mehta Vs The State of Telangana