Anumulapuri Alivelu v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.324 OF 2020 DATED : 08.01.2020 Between :

Anumulapuri Alivelu W/o.Akkaiah @ Akkulu, Aged about 50 yrs, Occu : Agriculture, R/o.Penchikaldinne Village, Nereducherla Mandal, Suryapet District.

..... Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.324 OF 2020 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2.

Petitioner claims that she is the owner and in possession of land to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.59/1 of Penchikaldinne Village, Nereducherla Mandal, Suryapet District, which was assigned in the year 1996, as they belong to Scheduled Caste community. Accordingly, she is cultivating the said land. She further claims that though the Rythu Bandhu scheme was sanctioned to the said land, she has not received the amount under the Scheme. Alleging that though petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records, she was not issued pattadar pass book, she made a representation on 09.09.2019, to the Tahsildar4th respondent for issuance of pattadar pass book, but so far, the same is not acted upon. Hence, this writ petition. 3.

A copy of the representation stated to have been made on 09.09.2019, is enclosed at Page No.9 of the writ petition paper book. Further, as per the procedure evolved by the respondentGovernment, a person seeking mutation of his/her name in the revenue records has to file application in form VI-A through online web portal and only such applications are processed in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana State Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act, 1971') and Rules made there under. Whereas, no such application was made by petitioner and no proof of submission of such application is filed.

- 3 - Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tahsildar -4th respondent is negligent in acting upon the request of petitioner. 4.

Having regard to the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application in prescribed form for mutation of her name in the revenue records. As and when such application is made, the 4th respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate decision, as warranted by law, and communicate the same to the petitioner, within four (4) weeks from the date of submission of such application. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 8th January, 2020 Rds