Disposed

Smt. Thatipamula Jayashree v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025WP/5142/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner sought a mandamus directing revenue authorities to decide her application to delete land from the prohibited properties list. The court disposed of the petition directing the authorities to examine the application and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to examine the MeeSeva application and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks; no costs.

Smt. Thatipamula Jayashree Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32e6 J

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5142 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Thatipamula Jayashree, W/o. Sri Thatipamula Shankar, aged about 56^years, Occpn. House-hold, Rl/o. Plot No.8, H.No.42-288, Maruthi Nagar, Near Venkateswara Temple, A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Mancherial District, Mancherial.

¶13

The Additional Collector (Revenue), Mancherial District, Mancherial.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Bellampally Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the inaction of the 2nd and 3d Respondents in not acting upon and^passing orders on MeeSeva application bearing No. 2400006647 dated O3lOSl2O24 and furtherⁱⁿ not considering the representation dated 1811112024 which is illegal and arbitrary and consequentty direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to act upon and to^pass orders on the application No. 2400006647 dated 0310512024 made through MeeSeva and further direct to consider the representation dated 1811112O24 ot the petitioner, which is in violation of the basic tenets of Laws.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition unrler Siection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstirnces stated in the affidavit filed ir sultport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents norer particularly 2"d and 3'd Respondents herein to act upon and pass orders on Mt:eSeva application bearing No. 2400006647 datecl 0310512024 oI the Petitioner, per ding disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶20

Petition un(ler Siection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sLrpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents rnore particularly 2nd and 3'd Respondents herein tc consider and act upon and the rellresentation dated^'t 8.'l 1.2024 of the petitioner, pending disposal of the Wr t Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. ABHAYA KUMAR SAGAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

-j4

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE^{C.V.BIIASKARREDDY}

¶27

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.5142 of 2O2S}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition, under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof}

¶30

India, is filed seeking ttre^{followingreliel}

¶31

"....to issue a Writ of Mandamus^{or angother appropriate uit} declaring that the inaction^{of tle 2"a and 3'd respondentsin not} acting ipon and.^{passing orders on MeeSeua applicationbearing} uo.zZOOooOAsT ilated 03/^{05/ 2024 and} furtler^{in not consideing} the representation dated^{18/11/2024 u-thich isillegaland} orbitriry and- consequently^{direct the RespondentNos'2 and 3 to} act upi and. to^po-ss ord.rs^{on the application No'240OO06647} daEA 03/05/2024 made^{tlvoughMee-Seuaand} further^directto consid.er the representation^{dated 18/ 11/2024 of the petitioner} ruhich is in uiolotion of the^{basic tenetsof La uts..} '^{- "}

¶32

Considered the submissions^{of the learned counsel for the} respective parties^{and perused the record.}

¶33

The petitioner clailars^{to be the owner and possessorof land} admeasuring Acs.5-00^{guntas in Sy.No.101/e/2and Acs'5-00} guntas in Sy.No.1O1/e/3^{situated atAnkusam Village,} Bellampally Mandal,^{MancherialDistrict, having purchasedthe} same under reBistered^{sale deedsbearing document Nos'13 and} 16 of 1998, dated 16.O1.1998^{respectively, and the revenue} authorities have mutated^{her name in the revenue recordsand} also issued pattadar^{passbooks with Khata No'286and Passbook}

I i

No.T1SO 1Ot)20O92 in her favour. It is the case of the petitioner that when the said property was listed in prohibited ltroperties list under tht: provisions of the Registration Act, J 908, she submitted arr application through Mee-seva bearing No.240O0O(r6 4i' , dated O3.O5.2O24 and also a represientation, dated 18.11.20'.24 duly enclosing the documents seeking; to delete from the prohibited list of property. The grievance of the petitioner ir; that even after receiving the said applic ation, no action has treen taken by the respondents.

¶38

I-earn,:d c ounsel for the petitioner submitted that as the subject lanrls are not in the list of prohibitory proper:ties, the Sub-Registr ar has entertained the sale deeds, and cons;equently issued the 1161121d21 passbooks in favour of the petitioner, and at no point of time, the revenue authorities have objected sale deeds stating that thr: said lalds are assigned lands and the r;ame are prohibited Jor zLlienation. It is further submitted thaLt in the absence of conrlucting enquiry or issuing notice to the p,:titioner, the respond,rnts are not having any power or authority to list the subject land s of the petitioner in the list of prohibited properties.

¶39

Sri L. Rav inder, learned Assistant Government plt:ader for Revenue appearLng for the respondents has not disputed about

.\w

the purchase of the subject 1ands by the petitioner under registered sale deed and consequential issuance of pattadar passbooks in her favour. It is further submitted that the Subsection (4) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 19Og (for short "the Act") confers the power on the State Government either suo motu or on an application by any person or for giving effect to the final orders of the High Court of Telangana or Supreme Court of India to proceed to de-notiff, either in full or in part, the notification issued under sub section (2) and the Rules pade under the provisions of the Act.

¶44

\ \

¶45

It is settled law that as per Section 5 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (for short ActJ, the assigned lands are prohibited for transfer, and if any such transfer is being affected by the Sub-Registrar, he is liable for imprisonment of six months. A presumption has been drawn that once registered sale deed is executed, the nature of the lands is not assigned lands and it is patta lands, and more particularly in the absence of conducting any enquiry under the provisions of the Act, the respondents are not having any power or authorit5r to notiff the subject lands in the prohibitory list of

properties, €nd however, the said issues required to be decided after calling lor records by the District Collector.

¶50

7 . In vier r of the above, this Court deems it approl:riate to dispose of tlLis vrrit petition directing the respondent authorities to examine the application submitted by the petitioner aLnd pass a reasoned crdr:r' within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a rxrpy of this order and communicate the same to the petitione :.

¶51

With the ;rbove observations, this Writ Petition is <lisposed

¶52

of. No order irs t(r costs.

¶53

As a s:qturl, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any,

¶54

shall stand ctosel.

¶55

SD/.A. SRINIV DDY ASSISTANT REQ ISTRAR .:.i \

¶56

//TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State cf Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶59

The District Colbctor, Mancherial District, Mancherial.

¶60

The Additiorral Collector (Revenue), Mancherial District, Mancherial.

¶61

The Tahsild ar, Bellampally Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶62

One CC to {)Rl S. ABHAYA KUMAR SAGAR, Advocate tOpUCI

¶63

Two CCs to SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana eLt Hyderabad. [OUTJ

¶64

Two CD Copies

¶65

¶66

BS s

¶67

HIGH COURT

¶68

DATED:2010212025

¶69

i ir. Sj-_i/C
J
(l(
t)
lilZ tii it?5
C)
, :-, ,1,
.i)f :.,,, ,. ,.;,:) t

¶70

ORDER

¶71

WP.No.SI42 of 2025

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

@)n*W

Smt. Thatipamula Jayashree v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Thatipamula Jayashree 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

Amarveni Venkat Ramana Vs The state of Telangana

Mohammed Yavar Uddin Vs The State of Telangana

Ponnaboina Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

A. Amrutha Vs The State of Telangna

Smt. Theparla Sathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Thatipamula Anasuya Vs The State of Telangana