Disposed

Eesam Subba Rao v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jan 2025WP/35/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking direction to dispose of a pending Land Transfer (LTR) case. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to decide the LTR case on merits within eight weeks by complying with natural justice principles, serving notices to the petitioner and Respondents 3 to 12, while removing the allegation of dereliction of duty.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd Respondent to dispose of LTR Case Rc.No.E/725/2022 on merits within 8 weeks by giving due notice to the Petitioner and Respondents 3-12.

Eesam Subba Rao Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

132521

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 35 OF 202s

¶8

Between:

¶9

Eesam Subba Rao, S/o. Buchaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ- Agriculture, R:/o^H.No.S- 93/2, Kotagadda Village, Bayyaram Mandal, Mahabubabad Dist.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Tribal and SocialWelfare} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Agency Divisional Officer, {Revenue Divisional Office|,^Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad Dist,

¶14

Padishala Chandraiah, S/o Gopaiah Aged about^{6O years,Occ-Agriculture,}

¶15

Komeri Yellamma, Wo Ramachandru Aged about 55^{years, Occ- Agriculture,}

¶16

Vemula Bhagavath Sudhan, S/o Narsaiah,^{Aged about 35 years, Occ-} Agriculture and Business,

¶17

Vemula Kalinga Reddy, S/o Narayana,^{Aged about 40 years, Occ- Agriculture} and Business,

¶18

Shaik Mahaboob Ali, S/o Malsoor, Aged about^{68 years, Occ- Agricultureand} Business,

¶19

Shaik Hafeez, S/o Yakub, Aged about 40^{years,Occ- Agriculture and} Business,

¶20

Kunduri Hanmantha Rao, S/o^{Komaraiah,Aged about 65 years' Occ-} Agriculture and Business,

¶21

Biyyani Rudramma, Wo Narsimha Rao, Aged^{about 55 years, Occ-} Agriculture and Business,

¶22

Konduri Laxmi, Wo Veerabhadra Rao, Aged^{about 45 years'Occ- Agriculture} and Business,

¶23

Konduri Eshwar, S/o Komaraiah, Aged^{about 65 years, occ- Agricultureand} Business,

¶24

(Respondents 3 to 12 are residents of lrsulapuram Village,^{Bayyaram Mandal,} Mahabubabad District)

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to decrare that, the non-disposar of LTR case Rc.No. E/725l2022 by 2nd respondent is dereriction of duty, as respondents 3 to 12 who are non-tribars are in occupation of the rand of the petitioner who is a tribar and issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the LTR Case Rc.No.E/725l2022 as early as possible.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶28

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the LTR case Rc.No.E n2st2o22 as earry as possible, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI V.V.RAGHAVAN

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents No.3to12 :

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶34

WRIT PETITION No. 35 ot 2lJ25

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard Sri V.V. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf^of respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶37

The oetitioner aDDroached the Couft seekin^{o oraver} as under:

¶38

"...to declare that, the non-disposal of LTR Case Rc.No. E/725/2O22 by 2nd respondent is dereliction of duty^as respondents 3 to 12 who are non-tribals areⁱⁿ occupation of the land of the^{petitioner who is a tribal} and issue a writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing^the2nd respondent to dispose of the LTR^Case Rc.No.E/725/2022 as early as^possible and to^passsuch other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court^{may deems} fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶39

It is the specific case of the^petitioner, that^{the petitioner is} the owner of Acs.2-02^guntas in Survey^{No.259, Acs.2-04 guntas} in Survey No.262 and Acs.2-21^guntas in Survey^{No.253 of} Irsulapuram Village, Bayyaram Mandal,^{Mahabubabad District. It} is further the case of the^petitioner that^{respondentNos.3 to 12,} who are non-tribals, filed^LTR Case^{Rc.No.E/725/2022 before}

¶40

¶41

respondent l,lo.2 herein and respondent Nos.3 to 12 are raising wet paddy crops and realizing huge income and whereas, the petitioner is deprived of his income. Respondent No.2 had been issuing notices to the petitioner and also to respondent Nos.3 to 12 for an enquiry, but however is not deciding the subject case since the year 2022. Hence, the petitioner constrained to fire the present writ petition.

¶42

Learnecl counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 needs to be directed to dispose of LTR Case Rc.No.E/725/2022, in accordance to law, within a reasonable pe riod.

¶43

Learned Government^pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶44

Ta kinq in o cons idera tion:

¶45

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

¶46

¶47

, I

¶48

(b) The submissions made by the learned^counsel appearing on behatf of^{the petitionerand the learned} Government Pleader^{forSocial Welfare, appearingon} behalf of resPondent^{Nos.1 & 2, and,}

¶49

(c) The fact that LTR Case Rc.No.El725l2O22,^filed by the respondent^{Nos.3 to 12 under Section 1(a) of} Section 3 of the Telangana^{State Schedule AreasTransfer} Regulations 1 of 1959, as^{amended by Regulations} tlL}TO read with 7(1^{& 2) of Telangana State Schedule} Areas (Land Transfer^{Rules), 1989, is pending before} respondent No.2 since the^{year 2O22,}

¶50

The Writ Petation is disposed^{of directing respondent} No.2 to dispose of the^{LTR Case Rc.No.E/72512022 on} merits,^pending before^{respondent No.2, in accordanceto} law, in conformity with^{the principlesof naturaljustice,by} giving due notice to the^{petitionerand also to respondent} Nos.3 to 12, after^{final adjudicationof the subiect issue} within a^period of eight^{(8) weeksfrom the date of receipt} of a copy of this order.^{However, there shall be no order} as to costs.

¶51

¶52

i I i I I J I l

¶53

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶54

SD/. V.KA ITHA ASSISTANT REGI TRAR

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SECTION OFFICER

' J[?i;'ii5:l.,3fflltftia"',.:l[Srand^{sociarwerrareDepartmenr,} secretariat,

¶59

, J,:ifln"*?:?ivisionat^{officer, (RevenueDivisionarofficer),} Mahabubabad,

¶60

One CC to SRt V.V RAGHAVAN, Advocate. tOpUCJ

¶61

l*.o CCs to Gp FOR S oCIAL WELFARE' High Court for the State of

¶62

r etangana. [oUTl

¶63

Two CD Copies.

BSK

apsK

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310112025

(
\
t'
5
il
i) li 4 rits 2025 Il
,, t .! ..: '/,,
/ ,F.^,,
a ia\r<br>--- :.-:a-:--2'

¶72

ORDER

¶73

WP.No.35 ot 2025

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶75

Eesam Subba Rao v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eesam Subba Rao v. 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

A Chandra Shekar Reddy,and 2 Vs Chairman and M.D,Tstransco,Hyd,and 2

B. Rukmini Bai Vs Sri Sandeep Kumar Sultania

Chavidi Rama Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M. Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Vic Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri. Jayesh Ranjan, IAS

Mandli Phaneendra Kumar Vs The State of Telangana