Koddoor Siddlu, Agriculture, Rl/o H v. The state of relangala., F.ep.. by. its principal secretary, Revenue
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
ln view of the above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. ln view of the above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order. Respondent No.3 is directed to re- consider the succession application of the petitioner bearing No.2500766949 dated 20.12.2025 in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.2-2O guntas in Survey…
Judgment
Cause title
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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the Petitioner's succession Application No.2500766949 dated 20-12-2025 pertaining to agricultural land in sy. No.1o3t4sta, Extent Ac. 2.2o gts, Khatha No.13g7, situated at Shamshabad Revenue Vitlage and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - via a cryptic, single-line order without assigned reasons or a speaking order, as being arbitrary, illegal, and in over - violation of the principles of natural justice ; and consequently, be pleased to set aside the same and direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the application afresh in accordance with the law. |.A.NO:1 Oft 2026 Petitir>n Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the Petitioners Succession Application No.2500766349 dated 20-12-2025 afresh by giving the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing and by passing a speaking order on merits in respect of the land in Sy.t{o 103 45 a Extent Ac 2 20 gts Khatha No 1Jg7 situated at shamshabac Revenue village and Mandat Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.RAM MOHAN REDDY counsel for the Respondents : sRl L.RAVINDER, AGp FoR REVENUE The Court marde the following
ORDER :
+ jn :g'-, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6706 OF 2026 DATE: 05-03-2026 Between Koddoor Siddlu The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and three others. ORDER: (ORAL) AND .... Petitioner Respondents Heard Mr. V. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, and perused the material available on record
The succession application of the petitioner bearing No.2500766949 dated 20.12.2025 pertaining to the land admeasuring Acs.2-20 guntas in Survey No.103/45/a situated at Shamshabad Revenue Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, has been rejected by respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner is / 7 that in the rejection order, no reasons have been assigned by responCent No.3.
lt is stated that originally, the grandmother of the petitioner, Smt. Krddoor Balamma w/o. Koddoor Balaiah, purchased the land admeas; uring Acs.5-00 guntas in Survey No.103/45 of Shamshabad Village and she was issued pattadar pass book under Ex.pg document as per the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattada'Pass Books Act, 1971 . She had two sons ylz., K. Narsimha (father of the petitioner) and K. Yadaiah. The said Mr. K. Narsimha pre-deceased his mother Smt. K. Balamma, as such, the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Koddoor Pentamma, and Mr. K. yadaiah were allotted half share each i,e., Acs.2-2O guntas, by way of succession. The name of the mother of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records including Dharani and Bhu Bharati portal. The mother of the petitioner died on 21 .08.2012, and for getting the lands mutated in his name, th') petitioner applied for succession through Bhu Bharati vrde application No. 2500766949 dated 20.12.2025. The succession application was rejected with remarks 'Others, specify,.
Lr:arned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection order is in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. :3
lt is settled principle of law that a Quasi-judicial authority is bound to disclose the reasons for passing the order, when rights of the parties are determined relating to immovable property. The rejection order as seen from Ex.P't does not specify the reasons for rejection, as such, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.
Operative part
ln view of the above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order. Respondent No.3 is directed to re- consider the succession application of the petitioner bearing No.2500766949 dated 20.12.2025 in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.2-2O guntas in Survey No.103/45la situated at Shamshabad Revenue Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by issuing notice to the petitioner and other interested persons and also by affording opportunity of hearing to them, and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by specifying the reasons. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition , shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/' To
The PrinciPal Secretary, Revenue DePartment'
2. 3. The Revenue 4. The Tahsildar SD/. C.DEEPI STAT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICE State of { i \
5. Two (lcs to Gp.FoR REVENUE, High co-urt for thb state of relangana at Hydercbad IOUTI 6' one cc to sRt v.RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate topucl 7. Two CD Copies t'u" ---- r- SA I t .::i:': t"- O\'' $ I t I1 fi?{t1 .Y ,.e-' ;,.J ',J t t HIGH COURT ATED:05/0312026 \ \ ORDER WP.No.6706 of 2026 OWING THE W.P c 3 u tlb AL
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ln view of the above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Land and Pattada'Pass Books Act, 1971.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 05 Mar 2026. The bench was B VTJAYSEN REDDY, B VIJAYSEN REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.