Pathlavath RuPli v. The Tahsildar' Farugnagar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the light of the said discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Tenancy Act, 1950 s. 40
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the light of the said discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider the application dated 04.03.2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 40 of the Act and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law, by putting…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition Under Article 226 ol lhe 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 nature of Writ of Mandamus decraring the inaction of Respondent No.1 in taking steps to consider and dispose of Petition dated 04/03/2025 under section 40 of Tenancy Act 1950 by taking into account the Judgment and Decree in O S'No'115 of 2018 on the file of The Principle Junior- Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar dated 3110112019 as bad in law and violative of ratio laid down in Syed Abdul Majeed and Ors Vs' Joint Collector - ll and Ors reported in 2006(5)ALD348' 2006(5)ALT 754 by the High Court' Hyderabad and consequently direct Respondent No l to dispose the Petition daled '0410312025 I I l I t ! t I t I ...: - -a,, ;*^.{ under Section 40 of Tenancy Act '1 950 in view of the Ratio laid down in Syed Abdul Majeed and Ors Vs. Joint Collector -lt and Ors reported in 2006(5)ALD34B, 2006(5)ALT 754 by the Honourable High Court, Hyderabad in the lnterest of Justrce. I.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 Respondent No 1 to dispose the Petition dated-0410312O25 under Section 40 of Tenancy Act '1950 in view of the Ratio laid down in Syed Abdul Majeed and Ors Vs. Joint Collector - ll and Ors reported in 2006(5)A1D348, 2006(5)ALT 754 by the Honourable High Court ,Hyderabad ,pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following
ORDER .
3f. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I(LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.22208 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
The petitioner and five others are the legal heirs of the late Sri ';Pathlavath Hasya, original protected tenant of land admeasuring Ac.15.29 guntas in Sy.No.132, situated at Solipur Village, Faruqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They obtained a decree and judgment dated 31.01.2019 in O.S.No.1 15 of 2018 from the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, declaring them as legal heirc ofthe late Sri Pathiavath Hasya. Thereafter, they have filed an application dated 04.03.2025 under Section 40 ofthe TenancyAct, 1950 (for short, 'the Act'), before respondent No.l, to record their names in the revenue records in respect of the said land. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said application, respondent No.l did not consider the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.1, petitioner filed i I the present Writ Petition.
Whereas, the leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.1 will consider the application dated 04.03.2025 frled by the petitioner and will pass 2 KL, J wP,22208,2025 appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
Operative part
In the light of the said discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider the application dated 04.03.2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 40 of the Act and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law, by putting the petitioner and the other plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit, legal heirs of the late Sri Pathlavath Hasya, the original protected tenant of the aforesaid land on notice and affording them an opportunity. If respondent No.l is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall pass orders assigning specifrc reasons and communicate a copy of the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR l' ., v SECTION OFFICER To District.
The Tahsildar, Farugnagar Mandal, at Shadnagar' Ranoa Reddv District 2 The Revenue Divisional o#;;;:5h''; h;agii blvisionatl Ranga Reddv s ih";'5utri"t Collector, Ranga Reddy District Kongara Kalan Village-' 4 The Principal Secretary, RE'en'" depattment' S6cretariat' State of 5 i;;'bt;i;ciFon nEvENUE, High court for the state of Telansana at o dl,"'cCi" s'nr e'SuOHnKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies Telanqana at HYderabad. Hvderabad. [OUT] wSA BS I t k1( J (,1 n 1,rc S f.q
o 13 tlJB ztEi ( I Or-- .i{T i_- l HIGH COURT DATED:301O712025 ORDER WP.No.22208 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. {o cop&4 ql8[t
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the light of the said discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Tenancy Act, 1950 — s. 40; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.