Telangana High Court
Smt.Y.S.Vidhya Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 11 July, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.28791 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the second respondent in rejecting the online application submitted by the petitioner bearing No.2100211497 for mutation, updation and for issuance of new pattadar pass book by the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.03 gts in Survey No.47/A2 situated at Kankole Village, Munipally Mandal, Sangareddy District.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the subject land under a registered sale deed dated 04.03.2008 vide document No.1189 of 2008 and thereafter, approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of the same and mutation was issued through proceedings vide No.B/877/2017 dated 13.10.2017 issued by the third respondent herein. In spite of the same, the same was not implemented in the revenue records and also not updated 2 MSK,J W.P.NO.28791 OF 2022 on online records and Dharani Portal. The petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land. Under those circumstances, the petitioner submitted an online application bearing No.2100211497 requesting for mutation, updation and for issuance of new pattadar pass book in respect of the said extent of land but the said online application was rejected by the respondent by placing the same on online Dharani Portal by mentioning "mutation application No.2100211497 is rejected by Collector. Collector remarks
- REJECTED - 2002".
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, already there was an order for mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. In spite of the same, the online application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by passing a cryptic order and without assigning any reasons. It is also contended that none of the documents submitted by the petitioner along with the application are considered by the respondents.
5. As is evident from the material placed on record, the name of the petitioner's vendor is very much reflected on 3 MSK,J W.P.NO.28791 OF 2022 online Dharani Portal in respect of the subject land and the petitioner also placed on record the registered sale deed executed by one Srisailam, whose name is very much appearing on Dharani Portal. The reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner are not spelled out in the impugned order. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is cryptic in nature.
6. Under the above circumstances, as the impugned order is passed without assigning any reasons, this Court is left with no option except to set aside the same and to remit the matter back to the respondents for consideration afresh.
7. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order is set aside and the application bearing No.2100211497 is remitted back to the respondents for consideration afresh by duly taking into consideration the registered sale deed dated 04.03.2008 vide document No.1189 of 2008 and mutation proceedings issued by the third respondent vide proceedings No.B/877/2017 dated 13.10.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with land within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this 4 MSK,J W.P.NO.28791 OF 2022 order. If, for any reason, the respondents are not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner, the respondents shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner within the time stipulated above.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ (MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J) 11th July 2022 RRB