Sri. Tipireddy Laxma Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 that action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Proceedings No. D11125712024 dated 08-04-2025 and 12-04-2025without considering my explanation dated 19-04-2025 and 11-04-2025 which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and forthwith to consider my online application No. 2400000596 dated 'lB- 01-2024 and against the principles of Natural Justice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition 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 2 1 '1d respondent to consider my representation dated 19-04-2025 and 11-04-2025-by setting aside the proceedings No. Dr12s7r2r) 14 dated o}_04_2o25 and 12-04-2025 in accordance with law, pending disposal o.f ,rrit petition. Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. G.SANGEETHA counsel for the Respondents : sRr H.RAKESH KUMAR, A(i , FoR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER i I l ! l ,lt : 'l .) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.22OO2 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that action of the 2"d respondent in issuing the Proceedings No.Dll 1257 /2024, dated 08.04.2025 and 12.O4.2O25 without considering my explanation dated 19.04.2025 and 11.O4.2025 which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Article i4 and 21 of Constitution of India and forthu,ith to consider my online application No.2400000596 dated 18.O1.2024 and against the principles of Natural Justice...'

2. Heard Ms. Sangeetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing lor respondent Nos. I and 2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner hled W.P.No.27342 of 2024 for not considering his online application No.240OOOO596, dated lB.Ol.2O24. This Court on 01.10.2024 had passed the order. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder: "...5. In the light of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider and dispose oi the online application vide Np.24O00OO596, dated I 2 EW,J W.P.No.22002 of 2025

18.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner iL appropriate orders, in accordance with law by Il petitioner, respondent No.5 and all affected partie i and affording them an opportunity. [f respond€r not inclined to accept the request made by the per i shall pass a reasoned order and communicate t-r the said order to the petitioner. He shall comple.t exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from lt receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no ,r: costs." d pass tting the )n notice : No.2 is ioner, he copl./ of thc said r date of ler as to

4. She would submit that without referenc( to the merits of the application made by the petitioner herei r, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned proceedings b1 relying upon the provisions under U.l.D.A.I., which is extracted hereunder: "...FrLrther it is noticed that as per the standarl U.I.D.A.I a) temporary residents, including Norr. Indians (NRIs) and resident foreign nationals, can an Aadhaar card providing they have lived in hc least 182 davs in the 12 months preceding their al) b) for OCI card holders, the Aadhar issued will be r lor a period of Ihe years only. due to aadhar carl irregularlv and the same be used to get the land t-i in the online application No.24OOOO0596." rules of lesident .pply for a for at lication, rlid only secured nsferred

5. She would further submit that the case of the petitioner is that the application made by the petitioner is not duly considered by the respondent authori ies. Without making any observations on the status of th I petitioner's application, the impugned proceedings have tr en issued by . respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner h,r i suppressed 3 IJW,J W.P.No.22002 of 2O25 the facts and obtained Aadhar Card, which is not the subject matter of the writ petition. She would further submit that il the petitioner violated any conditions of the provisions under U.l.D.A.I., the appropriate authority is U.I.D.A.I. She would further submit that the petitioner was acquired the land to an extent of Ac. l.O3 guntas in Sy.No.2SlAA (new Sy.No.2S/AA/l) and to an extent of Ac.2.O4 guntas of land in Sy.No.3O (new Sy.No.30/ l), situated at Hanmajipet village, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna siric ra District by way of succession from his father Late Adi Reddy. She would further submit that the petitioner is already holding the pattarlar passbook and he made an appiication onry for making correction of entries in online by deleting the wrong entries made in favour of his brother Tippireddy Venakta Reddy. 6' She would further submit that insofar as the petitioner's rights over the said survey numbers are concerned, it is evident that the petitioner has been holding a pattadar passbook earlier and has now only submitted al application for online corrections and for issuance of an e_ I l , i 4 EW,J w.P.No.22002 of 2025 pattadar passbook. But, respondent No.2, vithout going into that aspect, has completely diverted the 1 roceedings in hald and rejected the case of the petitioner t,' relying upon the other aspect of Aadhar Card, which lvoul- perverse and seeks to pass appropriate orders.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistar:l Government Pleader would submit that before seeking 3 ry relief, the pettttoner 1S required to demonstrate that her claim is supported by the applicable provisions of lzL' ,r. Since the petitioner is not entitled to obtain Aadhar car 1, the case of the petitioner has rightly been dismissed by the said authority. Unless the petitioner proved that re is entitled to hold Aadhar Card, the case of the petitior er cannot be considered. Therefore, the case of the petiti: rer has been rightly rejected

8. Having heard learned counsel for the p etitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for levenue and upon careful perusal of material placed, this c :urt is of the opinion that the official authority ought to have strictly implemented the order passed by th r Court in I ( 5 EWJ W-P.No.22N2 of 202s W.P.No.27434 of 2024 dated 01.10.2024 on the aspect of the case of the petitioner pertaining to his application dated

18.01.2024 and ought to have passed appropriate orders. But, without touching the same, passing impugned proceedings relying upon the Aadhar Card is not in accordance with law. If the oflicial respondent had any objections on the aspect of Aadhar Card of the petitioner, they ought to have taken appropriate action under the said provision of law. Without making any reference on the order passed by this Court on the aspect of the online application of the petitioner, passing such rejection order cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. Accordingly, the said proceedings issued by the official authority vide proceedings No.D1l 1257 12024, dated 08.04.2O25 and liable to be set- aside and accordingly set-aside, and the matter is relegated to the District Collector-respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner purely in accordance with directions issued in the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27342 of 2024, dated Ol.lO.2O24 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6 I'VV,J U.P.No.22OO2 of 2025

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dispo s :d of. There \ shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pendi rg, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL )EPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary to the Government Revenue [)( partment, Telangana District Collector, Secretariat, State of Telangana at H'r erabad. 2. The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District. Telangil a State. 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the 51: le of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to [t/s. G.SANGEETHA, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies I I I I To S B : - ,.=.-.- t I I a i .3' ,, I BEC &' i\. - i.r.- 6pro * I I I i i I l HIGH COURT DA.TED:2411112025 \ i. \ ORDER WP.No.22002 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ,(