Meka Mallamma Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Meka Mallamma Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - writ petition dismissed as infructuous; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent No. 3 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Choutuppal) in considering the petitioner's representation dated 11-11-2023 to cancel the registered gift settlement deed (Doc No. 479/2007 dated 08-01-2007) and the patta in favour of respondent No. 6 in respect of Ac. 5-25 gts in Sy. Nos. 78/6 and 79 of Gulja Village, under Chapter V, clause 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is illegal and arbitrary. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since respondent No. 3 has already considered the petitioner's application and disposed of the same vide order dated 04.07.2024, nothing remains in the present writ petition to adjudicate further and it has become infructuous; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed, and there shall be no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) under Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (K. Lakshman, J.), decided 07-10-2025: Meka Mallamma (80), mother-in-law of respondent No. 6 (Meka Kavitha), sought a mandamus directing respondent No. 3 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Choutuppal) to consider her representation dated 11-11-2023 to cancel a registered gift settlement deed (Doc No. 479/2007 dated 08-01-2007) executed in favour of late Mohan Reddy, and to cancel the patta in favour of respondent No. 6 over Ac. 5-25 gts (Ac. 3-38 gts in Sy. No. 78/6 and Ac. 1-27 gts in Sy. No. 79) at Gulja Village, Narayanapuram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District, invoking Chapter V, clause 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300(A). An allied IA No. 1 of 2024 under Section 151 CPC sought cancellation of patta and rectification of revenue records. On instructions, counsel reported that respondent No. 3 had meanwhile considered and disposed of the application vide order dated 04.07.2024, which respondent No. 6 has challenged in W.P.No.6614 of 2025. Holding that nothing survived for adjudication, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, closed pending miscellaneous applications and made no order as to costs.

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

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

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 6635 OF 2024

Between:

lVleka lrilallamma, W/o late Linga Reddy,^{Aged about 80 years, OccHouse} Wife, R/o Bodamarla Gadda, Gujja Post,^{Narayanpur I,4andal,Yadadri-} Bhongiri District.

PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Revenue Department} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2

The District Collector, Yadadri- Bhongiri District.

3 The Revenue Divisionat Officer, Choutuppal^{Division,Yadadri- Bhongiri} Distnct.

4

The Tahsildar, Narayanpur^{N,4andal,Yadadri- Bhongirt District.}

5 The Statron House Officer, Narayanpur^{Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongiri} District.

6 Meka Kavitha, W/o Late tt/ohan^{Reddy, Agedabout 48 years, Occ Home} I,4aker. R/o H. no. 4- 9- 774, Road No.^{10A,Plot No 18, YellareddyColony.} Hayathnagar. R. R. Distnct.

..RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue writ order or direction more^{particularly one in the nature of} l,4andamus by declaring inaction of^{the Respondent No. 3 in consideringthe} representation of the Petitioner Dt^{'1 1- 11- 2023to cancel the Glft Settlement} Deed Doc No. 479/2007, Dt 08-^{01- 2007executedby me in favourof Late} N/ohan Reddy i. e. , husband of the^{Respondent No. 6, further cancel the patta in} favour of the Respondent No. 6 in respect^{of the land to an extent of Ac. 3- 38gts} in Sy No. 78/6 and Ac. 1- 27gts in^{Sy No. 79, totalingAc. 5- 25gts situated at}

Gulja Village, Narayanapuram (Samastan Narayanpur) It4andal YadadriBhongiri District, rLnder Chapter- V, clause 23 of Mainten rnce and welfare of Parents and Senior Citjzens Act, 2007, is illegal, arbitrary a nJ violatior of Articles 14, 15.21 and 300(A) of constitution of lndia and also vio a ion of natural lustice and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 to cancel i-atta in^fa vour of the Respondent No 6 in respect of the land to an extenl of i\r. 3- 38gt:; in Sy No. 7816 and Ac. 1- ,27gts in Sy No. 79, totaling Ac. 5- 259:s, situate d at Gulla Village. Nar;yan..ptrram lSamastan Narayanpur) L4ar^d: . Yadadr - Bhong ri District.

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th€ circumstances stated in the affidavrt frled in support of the petition, the High Ccu 1 may be pleased to direct the Respon(ient No. 2 to 4 to cancel patta in favour-:i the Respondent No. 6 in respect of lhe land to an extent of Ac. 3-38gts in Sy No 7816 and Ac.^'1-279ts rn Sy No 79, totaling Ac. 5-259ts, sitLr€ tcd at Gu;ja Village. Narayanapuram (Samastan Narayanpur) l,4andal, YacleC'l- Bhongiri District. under Chapter- V, clause 23 of lVaintenance and welfare o. Parents and Senior Citizens Act. 200'/ and rectify the revenue records by erlering the Petitioners name thereby del€ te the name of the Respondent No. 6.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUI:

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR HOME

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G.DAMODAR REDDY

The Court made the following: ORDER

l.-

*w

TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUS'TICE K. LAKSHMAN

WRI'I'PETITION No.6635 of 2024

ORAL OII.DER:

This Writ Petition is tilcd sceking a clircction to rcspondent No.i to considet' the application dated I I I 1.2023 submitted by the petitioner, rrother-in-law of lespoudertt No.6. sceking carrccllation of lcgistcred gift settlement tlccd bcaring [)ocunrcut No.479 of 2007, datcd 0t1.01.2007.

[-earnecl counsel appealing Ibr the petitioner and responclcut No.(r and leaniccl Assistant Govertintcttt Plcadcr fbr Wonren artd Child Wellhre, on insh'uctions.^{rvoulcl subntit} that resl.ronclcut No.3 has ah'cady consider-ed thc^said application and disposed of the same vldc orclel dated 04.07.2024 and respondent No.(r has filed a writ^petition lirlc W.P.No.6ti4 ol'2025 challenging the said order

tn thc liglrt of the same, nothing remains in the^prcscnt wrrt petltlon to adjudicate hrrll.rer and it has beconre infructttous.

2

Accolilingly, Llris Writ Pctition ts disrrisscd as

inli'uctuoLrs

'lir;ccllarrcous applicatiorrs. il- an1, pon,.{in!r. sliail stand

closcd.'l'lrcr.c shall lrc ntr orrlcr'as lo costs

sD/i rvl. osMAN ALI B4!(L I\SSISTANT REq&TRAR \ -- ,TRUE COPY//

. SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC

2 One CC to SRI G.DAIVODAR REDDY, Advocate tOPl t l 3 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the litate of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

4 Two CCs kr GP FOR HOltlE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5 Two CD Copies

BSR

W.

TKS

l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711012025

ORDER

WP.No.6635 of 2024

':..
I
2 7 t.,l ?ffi
.*
\ ;'r

DISMTSSING THE^{WRIT PETITION}

AS INFRUCTUOUS,

WITHOUT COSTS

q
ixl l
t^, L
()i1
,);4