Malkajgiri Bangari Raju alias Bangari Raju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Mar 2026WA/255/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin), Writ Appeal No. 255 of 2026, decided 02.03.2026 — patta; landless poor person; representation dated 27.11.2025; L.G.C. No. 79 of 1991; land grabber declaration dated 10.09.1993; A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act; Survey No.76; 890 square yards; Thokatta Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad; Secunderabad Cantonment Board; modification of operative order from 'dismissed' to 'disposed of'; I.A. No. 2 of 2026 under Section 151 CPC; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Operative part of the impugned order (paragraph No.7) modified from 'dismissed' to 'disposed of'; writ appeal disposed of with no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed. ¶¶60

Malkajgiri Bangari Raju alias Bangari Raju Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether, the learned writ court having appreciated the case of the parties and directed the appellant to submit an independent representation seeking patta as a landless poor person (to be considered by the authorities in accordance with law), the writ petition ought to have been disposed of rather than dismissed. +1 more

¶¶57

Court's answer

Since the learned writ court appreciated the case of the parties and, instead of granting relief straightaway, directed the appellant to submit an independent representation seeking patta as a landless poor person with a direction to the authorities to consider it in accordance with law, the writ petition ought to have been disposed of instead of being dismissed.

¶¶57

Ratio / Principle

The operative part of the impugned order at paragraph No.7 is modified as 'disposed of' instead of 'dismissed'; consequently the writ appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.

¶¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 11.12.2025 in W.P. No. 38177 of 2025, whereby the writ court dismissed the appellant's petition seeking a declaration that respondent No.2's failure to consider and dispose of his representation dated 27.11.2025 (for grant of patta in respect of 890 square yards in Survey No.76, Thokatta Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad) was illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The writ court had recorded that the appellant's grandfather was declared a land grabber by order dated 10.09.1993 in L.G.C. No. 79 of 1991 of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, and while dismissing the petition left open liberty to submit an independent representation seeking patta as a landless poor person, to be considered in accordance with law. Held, since the writ court appreciated the case of the parties and directed consideration of such a representation instead of granting relief straightaway, the writ petition ought to have been disposed of rather than dismissed; the operative part of the impugned order at paragraph No.7 is modified as 'disposed of' instead of 'dismissed'. Appeal disposed of; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[^{3488 ]}

¶2

oF^TELANGANA rN^{rHE HrGH couRlfflTJtr^:JfJE}

¶3

-"S?8i-'&i"^'-?"li'?Jfi ']'?f'Yff

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THEHoNoURABLETHECHIEFJUSTICESRIAPARESHKUMARSINGH

¶6

G'M'^MoHluDDIN

¶7

rHE^HoN.,RABLE '*tTtl"lcE

¶8

preferred^againstOrder Writ^{Appeat under clause 15 of the Letters Patent} High^Court' Dated^{11t12l2[25inWP'No'38177 of 2025 on the fite of the}

¶9

Between:

¶10

' an angari^{Veeraiah@lrxalkalgri} "A";; N"g't cotonv'^New Y:I1:[l'i;:3''^{x'ult^i$:i::3:'l'";#';;rurelB usi ne"','Rio scB} No.1-R1-roa]^{sv'No'76'^} "nL"i'rn-o"rt3"3' Bowenpally'^{Cntonment' SecunO"t'OaO' Tetangana State'}

¶11

P ETITION^ER ...APPELLANTTWRIT

¶12

AND

¶13

l.TheStateofTetangana,Rep.byitsPrincrpalSecretary,RevenueDepartment,-itrt" s."'"t"-'iui' xn'i't'ouo' Hyderabad' Dr. B.R.^{Ambedkar retanga"nl} Telangana^State'

¶14

2.TheDistrictCollector,HyderabadDistrict,stateofTelangana'

¶15

2.TheDistrictCollector,HyderabadDistrict,stateofTelangana' 3. The^{Revenue Divisionalofficer, SecunderabadDivision' Hyderabad District'} Telangana^State'

¶16

The^{Tahsildar, Tirumalagiri Mandal, HyderabadDistrict,TelanganaState.}

¶17

The^{chiefExecutiveofficer, Secunderabad cantonment Board'office at} Near City^{Civit Court., Secundeiabd- 500 003, Hyderabad District' Telangana} State.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶20

petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the} respondents^{to issue pattain favour of the petitioner/appellant in an extent of 890 sq'}

¶21

yards in sy.No.76 situated at scB.No.1_R1_10g chinna Thokatta virage, Anand Nagar cororry' New gowenpatty, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District, state of Telangana' pending disposar or *re writ appear, in the interest of Justice.

¶22

COUNSET fOr I:hE APPEIIANT: SRI VENKATA RAGHU I\4ANNEPALLI counset for the Respondent No. 1 to 4:BE,SrfA..ir#ffiREDD'

¶23

KATRAM, counsel for flre Respondent No.S: sRt K.R.KOTESWAR RAO, sc FOR SCB The Court detivered the foltowing: JUDGUIENT

¶24

TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶25

THT] [TON'I}I-E THE CTIII'F.IUSTICE SRI APARESI{ KUMAR STNGI{

¶26

AND

¶27

.tH T.] I ION' BI-E SIII JUS'I'TCE G.NI.MOH.IU DD IN

¶28

WRIT' APPEAL No.255 of 2026

¶29

Dated: 02.03.2026

¶30

Between:

¶31

Mall<aigiri Bangari ltaju 'rr-, l]angari Raju

¶32

...Appellant

¶33

and

¶34

'fhe State of 'felangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Departrnent, Dr. tl.lt.Anrbcdkar^'l clansana Statc Secretariat, Khairtabad, I I1,61.,'u[1^tl,^'l'e lalgarta State, And 4 others.

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Learnecl counsel Sri V.R.Mannepalli appears for the appellant.

¶38

Sri Muralidhar Rcddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for

¶39

Revenue, appears for respondents No. t to 4.

¶40

Sri K.R.Kotesrvar Rao, Iearned Standing counsel for

¶41

Cantonment, appears for respondent No.5.

¶42

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

'l-he prcsent *'rit appeal ariscs or.rr of thc.ir-rdgnrent datcd ll.I2.2r)25 passed in w.l'.No.38177 ol'201-s tilect bl the appellant.

¶45

-[hc relicl'praycd firr in thc w'rit pctition rvas to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not considcring and disposing of the represenr.ation o['the appcllant datcd 27.11.202-5 as illcgal. arbitrary and in violation of principlcs of natural .iust.icc. I'he appellant also sought consequential ciircction to [he rcsporrdcnts not to irrtcrfere into the peaccful posscssion and cn-ioyrnent of the land of thc appellant in Survev No.76 to an extent ol 890 square yards situated at Thokatta Village. 'Iirurnalag,iri Mandal, New Borvenpalll,. Secunderabad, Hyderabad District. l-he learned rvrit court dismissed the rvrit petition observing as under:

¶46

u6. This Court has considered the subnrissions nrade by the learned counse,l for the petitioner, the learned Assistarrt Governrneut Pleader for Revenrre and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5. A p€ruSa, of the material orr record u'ould revcal that the pctitioner has been making; constant effofts by repeatedly filin-u^{rvritpetitiorrs} before^this Court. Ihe petitioner's case is that^{the respondettt authorities have failed} to consider the reprcserttatiorr, which^rras origirtally^rnade by^his grandfather. who was declared as a larrd^grabber by order,^dated 10.09.1993 in L.G.C. No. 79 of 1991. Relyirrg^on the^{order passedin that} case, the petitioner subrnitted a represelrtation^{seeking grantof a pattain} his favour, rvhich forms the basis of this writ petition. Admittedly,^the order dated 10.09.1993^passed in L.C.C.No.79 of l99l^{is not placed} before this Court. Since the entire dispute^{revolves around the} proceedings and observations of the Special Court under the^A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Flyderabad, it is inappropriate^{for this} Court to record any findings in the absetrce of that order. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the rvrit petition is devoid of rnerit^andis

(

liable to be disrnissed. l]orvever, it remains open for the^petitionerto subrnit an independent representation sceking a patta as a^landlesspoor person. lf such a representatiorr is made, and if the petitioner qualifies as landless poor and lulfills the requireure'nts of the relevant circulars and Goverrrrnerrt Ordcrs, the responderrt autlrorities shall consider the said represcntatiort itt accordartce * ith tlte larr.

¶51

Accordingll', tlris \rrit Petition is disrnissed. There :;hall be no orcle r us to c()sts.

¶52

As a sequel. the rnisccllarreous petitiorrs^pending, if any, shall stand closcd."

¶53

l.carncd counscl [br the appellallL submits that the learned r.vrit coLrrt, though allo,,ved thc libertl' to the appellant to submit an independenl. reprcscntation sccking patta as a landless poor person and if hc qualitrcs that criteria itncl tulllls other requirernents of relevant circulars and Government Orders, the respondents were directed to consider the said represcntation in accordance with law, but at the end, erroneously disrnisscd thc r.vrit pctition

¶54

l-earned counscl lbr the appellant submit that the appellant would be satisfied if the impugned order of disrnissal is modified

¶55

Learned^(iovernment Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No.l to 4 submits that he does not have any objection if the irnpugned operative direction is modified, since the appellant has already been granted the liberty to approach the competent authority for issuance of patta as a lanctless poor person.

¶56

¶57

In vicw of the afbresaicl l'acts and circurnstarlces, we arc also of the r ierv that since the learncd n,rit court apprcciatcd the case of the parti('s. instcad o1- granting the rcl icl' straiqhtau,ar . cli rcctocl tlrc appcl lant to sulrtttit arr independcrrt rcprcscrrtution sccl<ing parta zrs a lancllcss poor persoll r'vith a directiorr to the authoritics to consitler it in accordancc ri'ith larv. the writ petition ought to have been disposcd of instead ol. bcing lisrnissed.

¶58

Accordingly, the operativc part of thc iurpugned order at paragrtrph No.T is rnodified as^"disposccl o[" instead of "disrnissccl''.

¶59

10.^'l'he instant appeal is accordinglr disposccl ol. l'herc sitali be po order as to costs.

¶60

N'lisccllaneous app l ications pcncl i ne. i l' arr_r,. shal l stancr closed

¶61

SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

R. Ambedkar^Telangana

¶66

1 The Prin,:ipal^{Secretary' Revenue Department'} State Se:ietariat,^{Khairtabad,Hyderabad,Tela} ngana State.

¶67

The Distlict^{collector,Hyderabad District, state of Telangana'}

¶68

The Rev,Enue^{Divisional officer,SecunderabadDivision, Hyderabad District'} Telangarra State.

¶69

The Tahsildar,^{Tirumalagiri Mandal, HyderabadDistrict, TelanganaState'}

¶70

The Chi<lf^{ExecutiveOfficer,Secunderabad CantonmentBoard' Officeat} Near city civil^{courts,Secunderabd-500 003, Hyderabad District, Telangana} State.

¶71