Nelluri Ramesh v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Dated:19.04.2018 Between:

Nelluri Ramesh, S/o.Lingaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Rajeswarapuram (V), Nelakondapally (M), Khammam District.

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

... Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

According to the petitioner, he is owner and in possession of land to an extent of Acres 5.13 guntas in Survey No.406/A2 of Rajeswarapuram Village, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District. Petitioner now apprehends that land to an extent of Acres 1.21 cents in the above survey number is now sought to be reduced and ear-marked in the name of his brother - arrayed as 5th respondent.

2.

Petitioner claims that having come to know of the attempt to change the entries in the revenue records, he filed representation on 10.08.2017 objecting to any such correction. Petitioner is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in view of the display of the extents of land respectively. Petitioner filed extract of new display made by the Tahsildar reducing the extent in so far as petitioner is concerned and increase in the extent of 5th respondent. 3.

However, as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far no decision is made by the Tahsildar. It appears, on 28.07.2017, a notice was issued responding to the claim made by the 5th respondent and reply to the said notice was filed by the petitioner on 10.08.2017. If that is so,

it cannot be said that the Tahsildar would not consider those objections before accepting the plea of the 5th respondent. 4.

It is not in dispute that the Government is undertaking the exercise of 'Samagra Bhoo Survey' and it appears, a notice is displayed in the Gram Panchayat to bring to the notice of the persons about the proposed extents of land to be reflected against each person in the respective survey numbers and to give opportunity to raise objections. Thus, as of now, no order is passed. If petitioner has still apprehension, he could have raised an objection after the notice is displayed instead of rushing to this Court.

5.

Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise an objection, if so advised, this writ petition is disposed of. It is needless to observe that the Tahsildar shall consider the objections filed, if any, against request made by the 5th respondent by following the due process before taking further steps regarding correction in the revenue records. 6.

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 19.04.2018 SS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO 19th APRIL, 2018 SS