Yadadri Bhongir District v. The State Nodal Officer, Prajavani Section, Rangareddy District
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
2. Smt. Dosapati Bhavani, W/o Narsimha Aged about 35 years, Occ. Housewife, RJo H.No. 5-26, Pillaipalli Village, Pochampally [\rlandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.
3. Ivlr. Andela Harish, S/o A Balaiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.3-65, Pillaipalli Village, Pochampally I\/andal, Yadadri Bhongir District. 4. Mr. Lingala Mallesh Kumar, S/o Late Lingala Yadaiah, Aged about 52 Yearc, Occ. Employee. R/o. H.No.3-29, Pillaipalli Village, Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District. ...PETITIONERS
AND 1 The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Secretariat building, Hyderabad. 2 J 4 5 The Collector and District Magistrate., Rangareddy District, District Collectorate, Kongarakolan, Rangareddy District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam Division, Rangareddy District The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Rangareddy District. The State Nodal Officer, Prajavani Section, Rangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS
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 in the nature of a Writ of [\/andamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not processing the applications dated OB.O1 .2025 bearing Nos. 25000 16943, 25OO017137, 25OOO17234 and 250017280 under Dharani TIt/-30 tr/odule of the Petitioners for registration of Sale Deed executed by Civil Court pursu:rr^: to the reports of Respondent No.3 dated 28.O3.2025 bearing No.B/630/2Cit:i and Respondent No.4 dated 19.02.2025 bearing No. 8/366/2025 and order; r,ated 18.11.2024 in EP.No.80 of 2024 on the file of Vlll Additional District ,:Lnrl Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at -B Nagar, as illegal, arbitrary. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci'c!mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couri .nay be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to consider and process th,: applications dated 08.0 1 .2025 bea ri n g Nos. 2 5000 1 69 48, 25000 17 1 37, 25OO0 1 t',' 3 4 and 2500 1 t 2B0 under Dharani TIM-30 Module of the Petitioners for regislra tion of Sale Deed executed by Civil Court pursuant to the reports of Res:rondent No.3 dated 28.03.2025 bearing No.B/630/2025 and Respondent No a dated 19.02.2025 bearing No. 8/366/2025 and orders dated 18.'1 1.2024 in EP. ri,r.80 of 2024 on the file of Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangare, ddy District at LB Nagar- pending disposal of the present writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.ANIKETH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI L.RAViNDER, AGP FOFI REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHNIAN WRIT PETITION No.29790 of 2025
ORAL ORDER:
Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.L.Ravinder, learncd Assistant Goverrunent Pleader lor Revenue
Petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.S,50 ol 20 l9 on the filc of the VIlt Additional District and Scssions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, against tlre clefl'nclants therein for specific perfonnance of agrecment of salc datcd 27. 12.20 l8 in respcct of subject property i.e., land adrneasuring Ac.l.l0 Yz guntas ln Sy.No. 198/AA1/AA, situated at Guvvaledi @ Guvvalcti Vitlage, Bandaravirala Rcvcnue Village, Abdullapurrnet Mandal, Rangareddy District. The said suit rvas decreed on 30.08.2022 in favour of the petitioucrs. Theretbrc, they lrave filed execution petition viric E.P.No.80 ol 2024 seeking execution of the said decree and .ludgment datcd
30.08.2022. Leamed Executing Court allorved lhe execution pctition vitla order dated 18.1 1.2024. Therelirre, petitiorrcrs have l l I I I 2 -f! sublnitLed online applications bearing 1,1,.s.2_5699,(,r0r, 25j00ll137. 25000t7234 and 25001 7280, all ca cd 08.0 t.2025 under Dhararri -fM-30 Module. Respondent No,.t has subrnitted rcport dated 19.02.2025 to respondent No.3. l,r,r,e procecdings datcd 28.01.2025, respondent No.3 recolnmend,.(l to respondent No.2 to execu.te registered sale deed in favour of'tlrc petitioner in rcspcc[ of lhe subjcct propcfty. Evcn then respor:lcnt No.2 is not proceeciing I u rrhcr. Aggrievcd by the saicl inactic l r of respondent No.2, petitioners filed the present writ petition.
Leantecl Assistant Government pleader ft:rr. Revenuc. on instructions, rvould subrnit that respondent No..l rvill consider thc said online applications subrnitted by the petiti,: ners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law
In the light ol the said submission, this \!'it petition rs disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider. irnd disposc of the said online applications bearing Nr:..2500016943, 2500017 137, 250001 7234 and 25O0I72B0,alt da i:l 08.0t.2025 subrnitted by thc pctitioner, in accordance with r.w. He shall cousidcr- thc ri:port dated 19.02.2025 of respon(1,:tt No..l and -----7 3 rccornrnendation proceeding dated 28.03.2025 of rcspondcnt No.3 Miscellaneous applications, il any pencling, shall stand closcd. There shall be no order as to costs SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY AS ISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,
The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Reven Secretariat building, Hyderabad. Department, 2 3 4 c o 7 8 The Collector and District Magistrate, Rangareddy District, District Collectorate, Kongarakolan, Rangareddy District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam Division, Rangareddy District The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Rangareddy District. The State Nodal Officer, Prajavani Section, Rangareddy District. One CC to SRI D.ANIKETH REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. Two CD Copies. BSK BS w HIGH COURT ) DATED:2610912025 ,,.':,. .15 ...../,,.-, -.=-;. ORDER WP.No.29790 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ ,D )
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.