Dismissed

Kotla Narender Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2025WP/42118/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenging the State's non-action on a land prohibition list and failure to issue a digital title deed was dismissed as infructuous since respondents issued the deed after filing. A prayer to implead an additional respondent was part of ancillary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of Writ Petition No. 42118 of 2022 as infructuous without costs.

Kotla Narender Rao Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^32e,9 I

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

WR|T PETITION NO: 42118 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kotla Narender Rao, S/o Kotla Chalapathi Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R:/o Konetipur Village, Vangoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, T.S. Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Nagarkumool District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Vangoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

¶15

...RES'ONDENTS

¶16

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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondents No.2 & 3, in not taking any action against the Prohibition list (POL) in Sy.No.85/7 to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts., situated at Konetipur Village, Vangoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District in th€ Digital Title Deed of the petitioner and updating the same to the Dharani Portal and issuing the Digital Title Deed to that effect, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia by holding the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor in respect of the above said land and consequentially direct the respondents No.2 & 3 not tc create any disturbances regarding the petitioners iand.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Sec{ion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.2 & 3 not to create any disturbances regarding the land in

¶19

Sy.No.85/7 to an extent of Ac.3- 00^gts., situated at Konetipur Village, Vangoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Between:

¶22

Kotla Narender Rao, S/o Kotla Chalapathi Rao, Aged about 43^years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Konetipur Village, Vangoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District

¶23

,Writ Petitioner/ Petitioner

¶24

AND

¶25

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue^Department, T.S. Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶26

The District Collector, Nagarkumool District.

¶27

The Tahsildar, Vangoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

¶28

...Respondents/ Respondents

¶29

Surineni Bhagyamma, Wo. late Kashanna, Aged about 65^years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Shettipally Village, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶30

...Proposed Implead Repondent No.4

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the Proposed lmplead Respondent No.4 as Respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition No.42118 of 2022 and in all other l.A.s in the interest of the justice.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. RAMESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

¶35

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.421La OF 2o22

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandarnus declaring the action of the respondents 2 ald 3 in not taking any action against the prohibition list (POL) in Sy.No.85/7 to a-n extent of Acs.3.OO guntas, situated at Konetipur Village, Vangoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District in the Digital Title Deed of the petitioner and updating the same to the Dharani Portal and issuing the Digital Title Deed to that effect, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and.300-A of the Constitution of India by holding the petitioner as the absolute owner and possessor in respect of the above said land and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to create any disturbances regarding the petitioner's land.

¶40

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for tl e petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration as the grievance of the petitioner has been addressed by^the ofhcia-l respondents and issued digital title deed in respect of the^petitioner's

¶41

Page 2 of3

¶42

land. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition as infructuous.

¶43

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the leamed Government Pleader for Revenue, raised no objection.

¶44

In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as i n fru ctu ou s.

¶45

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶46

SD/- M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To, 1. One CC to SRI M. RAMESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP^{FOR REVENUE,High Gourt for theStateof Telangana} lourl

¶50

Two CD Copies

MMT

sr-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210912025

ORDER

WP.No.42118 of 2022

THE S
t
c
tl (.)
t- 13 't - ttll6

¶58

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

C
1'1-, q _1 E

Kotla Narender Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotla Narender Rao 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

Smt. P.Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mulpuri Sakkubai Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Sk Chanbi Vs The State of Telangana

Ramasahayam Shakuntala Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Rathod Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Bsg Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana