Disposed

Kante Ramamurthy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Oct 2025WP/32065/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing consideration of their claim for regularization of land in Kothagudem under G.O.Ms.No.373 of 2005 covering Survey Nos.141-143. The court noted their long possession and directed the authorities to consider their representation in terms of the G.O. within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' regularization claim under G.O.Ms.No.373 dated 24.03.2005 within four weeks; no costs.

Kante Ramamurthy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13487 l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI^{PRAVEEN KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32065 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Kante Ramamurthy, S/o Narsaiah,^{Aged 65 yeats,Occ, Business, FlatN9.} 301, A/eghana Priya Apartment, St.-^{No. 28, Goutham Nagar,Malkajgiri,} Hyderabad.

¶9

2 Damerla Kusumalatha, W/o Mogili,^{Aged 53 years' occ. Housewife, Fl/o} 4-6-1 1 2, G R Basthi, Kothagudem,

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by^{its Principal Secretary, Revenue.}

¶13

The District Colledtor, Bhadradri Kothagudem^{District Kothagudem,Town,}

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Kothagudem, Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem} District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to pass an order or direction or writ, more^{particularlywrit in the nature} of writ of Mandamus, duly^{declaring the action of the respondentsin not} considering the case of the^{petitioner for regularizationof the property as per GO} Ms. 373 of 2005, as illegal, arbitrary^{and against the principlesof natural justice,} and consequently direct the^{respondentsto regularizationof ihe property of the} petitioner vide H.No.4-6-1'12, situated at Gajulram^{Basti, Bhajan MandirRoad,} Kothagudem, in accordance^{with GO Ms No. 373 of 2005, in the interest of} justice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil. filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize of the property of the petitioner vide H.No.4-6-112, situated at Gajulram Basti, Bhajan tMandir Road, Kothagudem, in accordance with GO Ms No. 373 of 2005, in the interest of justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶20

Counsel for tlre Respondents: Ms. T.SWETCHA, AGp, REp. FOR GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

i')

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR} WRIT PETITION No. 32 of2018

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri P.Rama^{Sharana Sharma,leatnedcounsel} appearing for the^{petitioners throughonline and Ms.T.Swetcha,} learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for the leamed Govemment} Pleader for Revenue^{appearingon behalf of respondents, and} perused the record.

¶26

The present Writ^{Petition is f,rled to declare the action of} respondents in not^{considering the case of petitionersfor} regularization of their^{property in terms of G.O.Ms.No-373} Revenue (Assn.VII)^{Departmentdated 24.03.2005as arbitrary.}

¶27

The facts leading^{to filing the present Writ Petition are that the} l't petitioner purchased^{a house site through registered sale deed} dated 18.08.1987 to^{an extent of 234.36sq. metersfrom its} previous registered owners.^{Subsequently,the housenumber} initially attotted bearing^{H.No.4-681/2was changed to H.No.4-6-} lL2. The l't^{petitioner, out of love and affection, had gifted an}

¶28

¶29

¶30

extent of 98.16 sq. yards out of the above extent of properfy, in

¶31

favour c f his younger sister i.e.2"d petitioner.

¶32

It :s contended by the petitioners that originally, the entire Kothagtrdenr Town belongs to the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCICL) by virtue of lease granted by the Govemrnent for 99 yeani, which extends to many thousands of acres. The said lease period was expired in 1989. During lease period, several individuals, institutions, organizations were allowed and permitted by the SCCL to occupy their respective places. There were no original owners of these lands as Government is the owner and it has gilen the total extent of land to SCCL. Incidentally, for functioning and administration of SCCL, various facilities were incoqporated such as quarters, hospitals and other necessities. Subsequently, the Govemment, for the purpose of municipal adminir;tration, issued a Government Order making the Kothagudem area as Notified Area vide G.O.Ms.No.27 41197 L .

¶33

Pe:titioners further contended that the present properties originally fall from the same source. However, after expiry of the lease period, the Govemment with a view to regularize all genuine

¶34

¶35

occupants of land, had issued G.O.Ms.No.373 dated^24.03.2005 prescribing the regularization of the lands, buildings etc. under Sy.Nos.l4l, 142 and 143 and also^{prescribed certain fee.}

¶36

The petitioners further contended^{that pursuantto the} aforesaid G.O., they approached the^{respondent authorities seeking} regularization of their property vide H.No.4-6-^{1 l2 situatedat} Gajulram Basti, Bhajan Mandir Road,^{Kothagudem,but no action} was taken. Therefore, petitioners contended^{that they are also} entitled for regularization on par with other^{similarly placed} persons.

¶37

It is not in dispute that in respect of survey^{numbers l4l,142} and 143 pertaining to Kothagudern^{Town, the Governmenthas} issued notifications. The learned counsel appearing^{on behalf of the} respondents was also not disputing the same.

¶38

The record speaks that the petitioners are^{in continuous} possession of the said premises for the last two^generations. Therefore, the Government upon careful examination of^the proposals from the concerned Officials, has issued G.O.Ms.No.373

¶39

¶40

dated'24.03.2005 for regularization of encroachments of Govemrnent land covered by Survey Nos.l41, 142 and 143 of Kothagtrdenr Village and Mandal, which are in the shape of residential, commercial and industrial units, however subject to fulfi[m,:nt of conditions stipulated therein

¶41

Under the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for regularization of their property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.373 dated 24.03.2')05 subject to fulfillment of the guidelines/conditions stipulat,:d therein. The petitioners are also at liberty to make a fresh re:presentation to the respondent authorities duly enclosing recent^,SOs which are issued in respect of regularization of the subject lands, within a period of two (02) weeks fiom rhe date of the recr:ipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.373 dated 24.03.2005 and subsequent GOs positivr:ly within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter.

¶42

Srrbject to above observations and direction, W.P.No.32065 of

¶43

2018 is disposed of. No costs.

¶44

¶45

/ ./'/ //./ .7

¶46

1 1. As a sequel,^{miscellaneouspetitions pending if any shall stand}

¶47

closed.

¶48

,,TRUE^COPYI'

¶49

^rr3?';$tH#$tr^H g seciolr^oFFlcER

¶50

To, 1. The^{Principal Secretary' Revenue' Secretariat' State of Telangana'}

¶51

2.TheDistrictCollector,BhadradriKothagudemDistrictKothagudem,Town'

¶52

3.'rheRevenueDivisionalofficer,Kothagudem,Town,BhadradriKothagudem"'^'bi.1ri.t Advocate^[oPUc]

¶53

¶54

1. tn.^{cc to sRl P'RAMA SHARANA,:::::'ro.,n"} 'HARMA,^{Stateor relanganaat} t" nt:"R^{REvENuE' Hish court ror}

¶55

5' IYS-",";

6.^{Two CD CoPies}

BSR

TKS

cH.(

f I

: i i i t I I I I I i : t- i, I t I I I I I I I II I I t I, I i I I , II I i

HIGH COURT

DATED: 09/1 012025

ORDER

t THE S
<br>o 2 I F[8 2tl26

¶66

WP.No.32065 of 2018

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶68

WITHOI.'T COSTS

¶69

ob*

¶70

.,:'.:: :,1 . :,,'. : ''' ., .r ;#t:i itqnr-.li: r; . i' .,^j

Kante Ramamurthy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kante Ramamurthy 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

S. Venkateshwarlu Vs Sri Narsing Prasad

Sri Kota Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Tg., Rep by Its Commissioner and 4 Others

Jaggavarapu Seetha Reddy, R.R.Dist Vs Commr and Ig, Regn and Stamp Dept, Hyd and 5 Others

P. Niranjan Rao, Khammam Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 2 Ot

P.Niranjan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Jagavis Kritunga Bar and Restaurant Vs Mandra Usha Reddy