Rasala Laxmamma, Vs The State of Telangana

Bommaku Narsing Rao,S/o. Late Bommaku Shankaraiah, Aged 55, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-35, Boduppal Village, Medipalli Manda, MedchalMalkajgiri District.

¶16

Bommaku Murali,S/o. Late Bommaku Shankaraiah, Aged 48, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-35, Boduppal Village, Medipalli Manda, Medchal-Malkaigiri District.

¶17

7- Bommaku Venkatesham,S/o. B. Ramaiah, Aged 45, Oc Agriculture, Boduppal Village, Medipalli Manda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Arlicle 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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in passing orders in file No. 8/237212017, .05.2023 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of

¶20

principles of natural^justice and consequently set-aside the same by direct the respondent No.3 to deliver the^possession to an extent of Ac^1i-26gts., in Sy.^No- 5 of lr/adaram Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., in^pursuance of the 38E certificate.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 not to entertain the sale deeds from the unofficial respondents for the land admeasuring Ac.6-26 gts., in Sy. No.5 of Madaram Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkaigiri Dist-, pending Cisposal of the Writ Petition and orders may be passed accordingly in the interest c,f^justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent NO 1 TO 3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent NO 4 TO 7 :-----

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

II I I I I I i

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE C.V'BHASKAR R.EDDY}

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.8l of^2O25

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is^{filed seekingto declarethe action of} respondent No.3 in^{passingorders in hle No.B/237212O17} ' dated .05.2O23, as^{illegal, arbitrary and violative of principlesof} naturai^justice and^{consequently, direct respondentNo'3 to} deliver the possession to^{the petitioner to an extent of Ac'6'26} guntas in Sy.No.S, situated at^{MadaramVillage,Ghatkesar} Mandal, Medchat-Malkajgiri^{District, in pursuanceof Section} 38-E certificate and^{for other appropriate reliefs.}

¶32

It is stated that the father^{of the petitioner is a protected} tenant in respect ol the^{subject land and he is entitled for} issuance of Section^{38-tr certificateunder the provisionsof the} Telangana Tenancy and^{AgricultureLands Act, 1950 (for short} "the Act, 195O") and Rules^{made thereunder.It is the case of} the petitioner that his^{father died inthe year 1970 and} thereafter Section^{38-E certificatewas issued to her mothervide} file No.8/402 /75, dated^{26.06.1975to an extent of Acs.13'23} guntas of Madaram Village. It^{is further stated that questioning} the said proceedings,^{an appeal has been hled under Section 90} of the Act, 1950^{and the appellateauthority while conhrming} the said^{proceedings,rejected} the^{claim of the unofhcial}

¶33

\1 - \

¶34

2

¶35

respondents. Aggrieved by the said order,^(t.R.P.No. 1979 of 1977 was filed before this Court and the same was also dismissed and then the matter was carried Ltpto the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.1..P.No.3009 of 1978 ar d the same was also dismissed confirming the ou'nership of tt e mother of the petitioner. It is further stated that uide frle No . 82 / lO93 I 2OO I , the Tahsildhar has delivered the possession oniy to an extent of Ac.6.37 guntas to the petitioner and her sisters, out of the total extent of Acs. 13.23 guntas.

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner is that wh,:n the petitioner made an application to delivcr the possession of the remaining extent, without considering the orders passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in favour o[ the petitioner and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, respondent No.3 Jras rejected the sarlre uide the impugned order and except mentioning the month and year, date was not specifically m tntioned in the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the petitin oer prays this Court to set aside the impugned order z nd direct the respondent authorities to deliver the possession of the remaining extent of land.

¶37

lrarned Assistant Government pleade: for Revenue submits that if the petitioncr is aggrieved with tlre order passed

¶38

4

¶39

3

¶40

by respondcnt No.3 in lile No.B/2372/2017, he is having statutory remedy of appeal under Section 90 of the Act, 1950 and the petitioner, instead o[ availing the alternative rernedy of appeal, has filed the present writ petition.

¶41

In view of thc said submissions made by the learned counsel for the rcspective parties, this Court, without expressing any opinion on lhe merits of the matter or inter se disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein, dcems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. On filing such appeal, the appellate authorit5z is directed to consider and dispose of the same within six (06) months from the date of its filing, after issuing notice to all the interested persons.

¶42