Disposed

Gade Sudharshan, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jul 2025WP/43190/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mutation of their names in Sy.No.576/E, Wadapally Village, Hanamakonda Mandal, Warangal District. The court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to petitioners to make application through online per existing rules; respondents to consider and pass orders in accordance with law expeditiously. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to make online application; respondents directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Gade Sudharshan, Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 43190 OF²⁰¹⁷

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gade Sudharshan, S/ o.^{Premanandam,Agedabout 51 years, Occ.Business,} R/b. Dharmaram Villaqe, Geesugonda^{Mandal,Warangal, Warangal District'}

¶9

Chinnamalla t\Iougili,^{"S/o.N/alltiah,Aged about 42 years,Occ} .Agriculture, Fl/o. Narakkapet V'illage,^{Nallabelli Mandal, Warangal, WarangalDistrict.} ^,

¶10

Mulkala Jhansi, D/oI^{SrinivasAgedabout 20 years, Occ Student Ryo.} lndiramma Colony,siddipet^{Mandaland District}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The state of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Principal secretary,Revenue Department,} Secretariat Building,^{HyderabadDistrict.}

¶14

The District Collectbr,^{Warangal, WarangalDistrict.}

¶15

The Revenue^{Divisional Officer Warangal, Warangal District'}

¶16

The Tahsildar, Hanamkonda,^{Warangal RuralDistirct}

¶17

d. BiriyiS;i;iih, 5lo.^{Hanumanthu,Aledabo.ut 45} vqqlP,.^{occ Business,Rr/o} Waddapalli Village, Hanamakonda^{Mandal, Warangal District'}

¶18

..,RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{Ihe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ,^{order or direction more particularlyone in} the nature of WRIT OF^{MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondentin} not mutating the^{petitioners namein the sY No.576/E, an extent of 0.02 guntas,} situated at wadapally^{Village,HanamakondaMandal,warangal District,} warangal, is illegal, arbitrary^{contrary to the provisionsof AP Rights in Land} Pattadar Pass Book^{Act 1971andrulesthereunderand as well as the violation of} the fundamental rights^{guaranteed under the constitution of lndia consequently} direct the respondents^{to deletethe name of the Sth respondent in the above said} survey number and^{mutatethe name of the petitioners in the abovesaid survey} number

¶20

l.A. NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO:5355^{2 0F 20171}

¶21

Petition under Section^{151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the 4th respondent to^{mutate the name of the petitionersthe landin Sy No.} 576tE, an extent of 0.02^{guntas, situated at Wadapally Village, Hanamakonda} Mandal, Warangal District, Warangal,^{pending disposalo{ the main Writ petition}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAMAKOTAIAH^KANDALA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4:^{AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.5:*

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K'SARATH}

¶28

WRIT PETITION^{No.4319O of 2OL7}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ^{petition is filed questioning the action of the} respondent^{No.4 in not mutating the names of petitioners} in respect^{of the land admeasuring to an extentof Ac'O'02} gts in Sy.No'576/E^{situated atWadapallyVillage'} Hanamakonda^{Mandal, Warangal District as illegal and} arbitrary

¶31

2,Heardleanedcorr'nselforthepetitioners,learned Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor Revenueand perused the} material^{on record.}

¶32

submits^{that in} 3. Learned^{Counsel for the petitioners} spite of the^{representationmadeby} petitioners on la.O4.2ol7^{for mutation of their nalnes inthe revenue} .e\ords, the^{respondent No'4 has not considered the same} ) and requested^{to a'llow the writ petition by directingthe}

¶33

¶34

:*.a&:t&....I? '

¶35

SK, J WP No.43190 oI2O17

¶36

respondent No.4 to consider their representation dated 18.04.2O12 as per law.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government .pleader for Revenue submits that the petitioners without making application through online made representation dated 18.04 .2or7 for mutation and if the petitioners made application through oniine as per the existing Rules, the respondent No.4 will consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per 1aw.

¶38

In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government pleader, without going into the merits of the matter, the Writ petition is disposed o1- granting iiberty to the petitioners to make application through online as per the existing Rules and after receipt of the said application, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiouslv as possible. No order as to costs.

¶39

¶40

WP No^43190of "*'^{20 i7} .,

¶41

Miscellaneous^{Petitions' if any' pending in this writ}

¶42

petition shall^{stand closed' No order as to costs'}

¶43

SD/. M. OSMAN^{ALI BAiG} ASSISTNNT REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

sEcr\NYFFTcER

To,

1 The Principal^{Secretary,Revenue Department'Secretariat Building'} T.S..Hvderabad^District.

¶49

1. 1. in:eit[:',s:"ilo;;saa:'"1''#ilruff +il ili;ila;-r,^{Hjnamkonoa'Warangal Rural} 'Pi'{l,clar.oist,ict^Distirct. 5. d; be*ilsni.'irnrtrAxoiAuqn^{rn"Nonlc,Advocate[oPUC]} - . 6. i")I EEi"t.-^{cp ioi nev'ei{Ue,Higr,courtfor the State of Telansanaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

Two CD CoPies

¶51

o^BIM ,^KKS

¶52

II i ll

¶53

1t ll t l l ! ,l ) l ;

HIGH COURT

DATED:07107t2025

t '.,. |,
04 sEP 206

ORDER

WP.No.43190 of 2017

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

o I ?f
(

Gade Sudharshan, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gade Sudharshan, 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

K Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Enumula Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri M.D.Appa Rao Vs The District Registrar

Smt. Gilukar Nagamani, Vs The State of Telangana

Danduga Narasimha Vs State of Telangana

Umesh Chand Nahar and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others