Disposed

Pandala Narsimha Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Sept 2025WP/28013/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sale deed executed by a senior citizen was cancelled by the RDO under the Senior Citizens Act; the purchasers' appeal before the District Collector was pending without decision. The court directed disposal of the appeal within thirty days after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to dispose of appeal within 30 days after notice to petitioners and respondent No.5; no costs.

Pandala Narsimha Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH . DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE^{.' '} .

¶5

PRESENT ,; ..j , .

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28013 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Pandala Narsimha Goud, S/o. Anjaiah, aged 45^years, Occ. Agriland Business, Rl/o. H.No. 5-104, Arutla Village, Manchal Mandal,^RangaReddy District-501508., Present Rl/o. H.No.8-4-G40008, Plot NO.^13, Road^NO.7 Gurramguda Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^{under Badngpet} Muncipality-501 510.

¶10

Pandala Madhavi, W/o. Narsimha Goud, Aged 40^years, Occ.^{Household Rl/o.} H.No. 5-104, Arutla Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-S01508., Present Rt/o. H.No.8-4-G40008, Plot NO. 13, Road NO.7^Gurramguda Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under Badngpet^Muncipality- 501510.

¶11

.....PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Government of Telangana Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Kongara Kalan Village, lbrahimpatnam, At. Kongara Kalan, Telangana^{State-SO1510.}

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam Division,^{Ranga Reddy} District. At. lbrahimpatnam.

¶16

The Tehasildar-Cum- Joint Sub- Register, Manchal Mandal, Ranga^Reddy District, At. Manchal.

¶17

Pandala Kamalamma, Wo.^{Late Anjaiah, Aged} about^{78 years,Occ.} Housewife, Fl/o. Arutla Village^{Manchal Mandal,} Ranga^{Reddy District} 501508.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe^Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to declare the action of the Respondent No. 2 in not considering the

¶20

' --^.-:- lraa,**t{$,

¶21

appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by tle Respondent No. 3 in M/F/358/2025 dated 21-06-2025 under the Senior Citi.rerns Act 2007, where under the Respondent No.3 cancelled the registered sale d -.r:d executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 by respondent No.5, as illegal, a^-bitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently directing the Resp:rndent No.2 to take steps to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners w tt)i'r a reasonable time, though the resF)ond{)nt No.2 has no power or authority to^r:ancel the registered sale deed, evern after payrng maintenance Rs.50001 to the Stn respondent against the orders passed by respondent No.3 in M/F/358/20:25 dated 21-06-2025 under Senior Citizens Act 2007.

¶22

LA.NO:1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition Llnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,,.umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stay all fu(her proceedinqs in pursuance of the orders passed hy the Respondent No. 3 in \IilFl35\l2025 dated 21-06-2025 under the Senior Citizor s Act, 2007 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI MOKILLA SRINIVAS REETETY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : -

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER

¶28

l i I

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.28013 of 2025

¶31

ORAL ORDER:

¶32

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and:tvtr,t.{avirider, l. , learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondentNos.I to4.

¶33

Petitioner No.1 is the son, and petitioner No.2 is the daughter-in-law, of respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 filed an application before respondent No.3 seeking cancellation of a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.l772 o,l ?OZJ, dated., 24.12.2024, which she had executed in favour of petitioner No.l.

¶34

By order dated 21.06.2025, respondent No.3 cancelled the said Sale Deed. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have already preferred an appeal under Section 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Act,2Ol9, before respondent No.2. They have also filed an interlocutory application seeking stay of the said order. However, respondent No.2 is neither deciding the stay application nor disposing of the

¶35

appeal in accordance with law.

¶36

¶37

,i .)

¶38

The petitioners have filed the present 'vrit petition contending that petitioner No.l purchased the prrl:,erty under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1772 o1-2024, dated 24.12.20?-4, by paying an amount of Rs.39,58,470/- r.o respondent No.5. However, this fact was not considered by rr:spondent No.3 while passing the order dated 21.06.2025. The pe,:itioners have already preferred an appeal challenging the sajd order dated 21.06.2025 before respondent No.2, and it is for rr:spondent No.2 to consider these aspects and decide the appeal filed by the petltloners.

¶39

ln light of the aforesaid discussion, the rrrrt petition is disposed of, rlirecting respondent No.2 to dispose :rf the appeal preferred by the petitioners, challenging the order det<:d21.06.2025 passed by respondent No.3, strictly in accordarLce with the procedure laid down under law by putting the lr:titioners and respondent No.5 on notice and affording them an opportunity. Liberty is granted to respondent No.5 to raise all objections before respondent No.2 - appellate authority and it is for rr:spondent No.2 to consider all such aspects and dispose of th,: said appeal. However. he shall complete the entire exercise witlri:r a period of

¶40

¶41

<--r--. - .+!i/ :' '{ i_ ::. ' f

¶42

thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

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

¶45

stand closed.

¶46