← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/16486/2018dismissed no costs

Gunda Ramulu , v. The State Of Telangana,

2018-05-02P Naveen Rao3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16486 OF 2018 DATED : 02.05.2018 Between :

Gunda Ramulu S/o.Jangaiah, Aged about 38 yrs, Occu : Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-99, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

..

Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others .. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16486 of 2018 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2.

Petitioner claims to be the owner of land to an extent of Ac.0.34 cents in Sy.No.377 of Turkayamjal Village in Hayathnagar Mandal, claim to have purchased by registered document dated 24.04.2006. Petitioner submits that he made application to grant occupancy right certificate in the year 2010. On the said application, process was set in motion. But no decision was taken. While so, the Tahsildar passed orders on 30.01.2018 granting mutation in favour of one Gouni Pavan Kumar mutating the lands in Sy.No.377 to an extent of Ac.0.30 guntas and other survey numbers. Aggrieved by the said mutation petitioner claim to have preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and according to petitioner the said appeal is pending. In view of subsequent developments and unless petitioner succeeds before the R.D.O.

, against the decision of Tahsildar granting mutation in favour of Pavan Kumar, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the competent authority is not deciding the application for grant of mutation. Therefore, no relief as sought for can be granted. However it is always open to petitioner to raise these pleas in the pending appeal claim to have been filed by him and or after the decision of RDO in his favour.

- 3 - 3.

Thus, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, as available in law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

___________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 2nd May, 2018 Rds