Smt. D. Sree Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Smt. P. Anuradha, W/o P. Laxma Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ, Housewife, R:/o H.No.5-8. Road No.1, Krishna Naqar, Near APHB Colony, Moula-Ali. Hyderabad, (TS) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI 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 or Writs, Order or pirections more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent no.1 to 4 in not considering the representation dated 23.4.2025 to fix the date of hearing of Appeal No.D/2371 of 2019 dated 1-10.2019 pertding before the respondent no.3 as illegal, arbitrary contrary to Section 5 of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 thereby violating the Constitutionetl Right of Property under Art 300-A of the Constitution of lndia in the interest of justi:e. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction to the respondent No.2 to 4, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 23 4.2025 by fixin 3 a date of hearing of the appeal No.D/237112019 pending before the respondent no.3, pending of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. A. ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5:--- The Court made the following: ORDER 7 ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASK.ARREDDY IVRIT PETITION No.17 48 of 2o25 This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanl,ing afiidavit, the Pctitioners herein prays that the Hon'bte Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Writs, Order or Directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaringlthe inactron o[ the respondent no. 1 to 4 in not considering the representation dated 2X.4.2025 to fix the date of hearing of Appeal No.D/2371 of 2019 dated 1,10.2019 p.r-r{it-rg before the rcspondent no.3 as illegal, arbitrary contrary to Section 5 of Telanganf Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 thereby violating the Constitutionat Right of Propcrt\ under Art 300-4 of the Constitution of India in the interest of ludtice and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper i4 the circumstances o[ the case."

2. It is stated that petitioner is the pbsolute ornncr and possessor of house property bearing Door No. 1O-12 in Survey No. 1O46, situated at Alair, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District (for short, lthe subject property'), having acquired the same through a registered Will Deed uide Document No.81 of 2OO4 dated 23.11.2OO4 executed by petitio4er's grandlathcr late Sri Gangi Recldy. It is further stated that the 5th respondent, rvho is the sister of the petitioner, made a claim before the 4th reSpondent for 50% share in the subject property and the 4m respondent paqsed an order dated 09.10.2013 by sanclioning mutation proceedings in faivour ol the 5'n respondent in respect of 50% share in the subject propdrty. It is furlher stated that aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2013 pa5sed by the 4th respondent, the petitioner hled a writ petition before this CpurL uide W.P.No.7238 of 2Ol4 and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by granting liberty to the petitioner to avail lalternative remedy before the v-! 2 CVBR, ,J W.P.No. 17348 of 2O25 revenue authoriry uide order dated 23.o4.2o1g. It rs further stated that petitioner lrled an appeal, uideNo.D/2371/2019 dar-ecl o1.1o.2o19 before the 3.d respondent, but since no orders are passed on the said appeal, the petitioner has submi[ted a repre sentation <lated 23.04.2o2s before the 2^d respondent requesting [o fix the date of heilring of the appeal No.D/2371/2o19 dated 01.1o.2019. The grievancr: of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are not considering the representation dated 23.04.2025 submifted by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and lcarned Assistant Government pleadr:r for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and with their conserrt, this writ petition is disposed of at thc admission stage. I, view of the nature of rerief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to respondenl. No.S is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that thc 4tr respondcnt, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry with regard to the nature of the subject property or the rights of tr..e inter se parties, has mutated rhe name of the 5ff responden t in the revenue records in respect ol 5O% share in the subject property uide order dated 09.10.2013. Learned counsel further contended that aggrieved by the order dated 09.1O.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal I{o.D/237),/20i9 dated 01.10.2019 on the file of the 3'd respondent, but the 3-d respondent has not disposed of the said appeal even after lapse of more than five years. ) ,d 3 CVBR, J W.P.No.17348 of 2O25

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeartng \ for respondent Nos.l to 4 has placed on rdcord the r,r,ritten instructions ol ,i the 4th re spondent-Tahsildar wherein it is stated that the appeal filed b,v the petitioner uirle AppealNo.Dl237ll2019 dated 01.10.2019 was transferred to special Tribunal and the Special Triburtal examined the case of the petitioner and dismissed the said appeal wide ord,er tr2 I 1442 I 2027 dated O2.O2.2O21 stating that the Tribunal has not found any valid rcason to interfere with the orders of the then Tahsilflar uide otder No.B/ 1688/2013 dated 09.10.2013 and the petitioner may aqproach the concerned civil court if she has any grievance oue. lhe order pabsed by the Special Tribunal on

02.o2.2021.

6. l.earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before dismissal oI thc said appealNo.D/237:r/2olgdatedO1.1o.2ol9uideordertr2l1442l2o2ldated

02.o2.2021.

7. In view of the aforesaid subrrrissions and since the appeal No.Dl23Tll20lgdatedol.lo.2olgfiledbythepetitionerwasdismissedby the Special Tribunal uide ord-er F2 / 1442 / 2q21 dated o2.o2.2o21 , no further orders are required to be passed in this writ,petition'

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed' There shall be no order as to costs 4 CVBR,.f W.P.No. 17348 of 2025 Miscellancous applications pen(ling, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYil SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG l\6SISTANT REGISTRAR \.'* \ . t- *- sEcTIoN oFFICER .-- -' .l ,/ To, TJ TK

1. One CC to Sri R. A. Achuthanand, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies h HIGH COURT I DATED:2310612025 ORDER ,., {. '

1..:, \ 2 3 AUB ilI6 WP.No.17348 of 2V25 \- \- r)- CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS