Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 711 (TS)

Podishetty Thirapamma v. State of Telangana

2025-05-28

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : (NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- “…..pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in 7 issuing the impugned notice No.6/159/2024 dated 27.05.2025 and consequential attempt to dispossess the petitioners from the agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/1/1 an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/1/2 an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas of Sy.No.451/E7 an extent of Ac.0-17 guntas of Sy.No.451/E/5 an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/1/3 an extent of Ac.0-22 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/2 and in an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/1/4 situated at Thangellagudem, H/o Cheedella of Penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District, at the instance of 5 th respondent as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned notice No.6/159/2024 dated 27.05.2025 passed by the 4th respondent and further also direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/1/1 an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/1/2 an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas of Sy.No.451/E7 an extent of Ac.0-17 guntas of Sy.No.451/E/5 an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/1/3 an extent of Ac.0-22 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/2 and in an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of Sy.No.451/AA1/1/1/4 situated at Thangellagudem, H/o Cheedella of Penpahad  Mandal, Suryapet District, and to pass…” 2. Heard Mr. Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. T. Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners was the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Acs.4-22 guntas in Survey No.451, situated at Thangellagudem, H/o. Cheedella of Penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District, (for short ‘ancestral property’), and land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas and Ac.0-17 guntas in Survey Nos.451/E7 and 451/E/5 respectively situated at Thangellagudem, H/o. Cheedella of Penpahad Mandal, (for short ‘self acquired property’) was purchased by petitioner No.1 vide registered document bearing No.1694 of 2010 dated 19.02.2010 and 1961 of 2010 dated 26.02.2010 respectively. The father of the petitioners was issued pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of their ancestral property. After the death of his father, petitioners divided the ancestral property among themselves and got mutated their names in the revenue records and they were also issued pattadar passbooks. 4. The father of the petitioners was issued pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of their ancestral property. After the death of his father, petitioners divided the ancestral property among themselves and got mutated their names in the revenue records and they were also issued pattadar passbooks. 4. It is submitted that when respondent No.5 tried to interfere with the ancestral property of the petitioners, the father of petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.210 of 2012 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, (for short ‘Trial Court’) which was decreed on 08.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal in A.S. No.48 of 2022 before the learned Principal District Judge, Suryapet, for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.210 of 2012, and the same is pending for consideration. 5. It is submitted that respondent No.5 is claiming Acs.2-00 guntas in Survey No.451 of Thangellagudem, H/o. Cheedella of Penpahad Mandal. As his mutation application was rejected, he filed W.P. No.24445 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 04.09.2024. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.4 issued impugned notice No.B/159/2024 dated 27.05.2025 calling upon the petitioners to submit documents to support their claim over the subject property. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.5 is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property on the guise of impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 vide No.B/159/2024 dated 27.05.2025. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that petitioners approached this Court without submitting explanation to the impugned notice dated 27.05.2025. If the petitioners submit their explanation to the impugned notice dated 27.05.2025, appropriate action will be taken by respondent authorities, in accordance with law. 8. As innocuous relief is sought by the petitioners, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with. 9. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit their explanation to the impugned notice vide No.B/159/2024 dated 27.05.2025 issued by respondent No.4, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit their explanation to the impugned notice vide No.B/159/2024 dated 27.05.2025 issued by respondent No.4, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the same, and pass final orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, respondent No.5 and all other concerned/interested persons. Till such orders are passed, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed not to interfere with the subject property of the petitioners. 10. With the above said directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.