LAWS(TLNG)-2020-10-110

MANCHIKATLA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

Decided On October 05, 2020
MANCHIKATLA SATYANARAYANA AND ANOTHER Appellant
V/S
State Of Telangana And 3 Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed, wherein the following prayer is made:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.11-06 guntas in Survey No.595 and an extent of Ac.1-35 guntas in Survey No.596, situated at Jangaon Village, Ramagundam Mandal. The petitioners' names were also incorporated in the revenue records as owners and possessors of aforementioned lands. While-so, in between 2004-05, the land grabbers hatched a plan, with the help of Village Revenue Officer, and altered the revenue records and incorporated the names of land grabbers in possessory column against the petitioners. In the year 2014, the petitioners made a complaint before Hon'ble Lokayukta, Hyderabad, who in turn called for explanation from the-then District Collector, Karimnagar and the-then Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli. The District Collector enquired into the matter and filed a detailed report, vide proceedings No.D1/1837/2014, dated 09.10.2014, stating that the names of the petitioners are continuously figuring in possessor column, but the original file is not available in the office of Mandal Revenue Office and further stated that the names of the petitioners in the revenue records are intact. Basing on the said report, the District Collector closed the complaint. Thereafter, petitioners filed representations dated 28.09.2015, 18.11.2019 and 13.05.2020 to reconsider the matter afresh, by deleting the illegal entries made in the revenue records in respect of Sy.Nos.595 and 596. But, no action has been taken so far on the said representations and ultimately, requested this Court to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioners expeditiously.