Disposed

Sama Jagan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Sept 2021WP/22580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 22580 of 2021, the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus for consideration of land-related representations by the District Panchayat Officer at the admission stage, directing the 4th respondent to transmit the representation to the Gram Panchayat for decision without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent (District Panchayat Officer) to forward the petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2021 to the Gram Panchayat, Indresham Village for a decision.

Sama Jagan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 22580 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sama Jagan Reddy, S/o^{Late Dhan Reddy,Aged about 10 years. Hindu, Occ.} Employei R/o Chainpapet Village,^{Saroornagailvlandal,Ranga Reddy District'} Telangana ...PETrroNER AND I The State of Telangana,^{Representedby its Principal Secretary, PanchayatRaj} and Rural Development,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad} '^Telangana. 2 District Collector, Medak^{District, Telangana.} a District Panchavath Officer, Medak^{District,Telangana} 4 Virrrs-d^j"Ct"iirv, indiesham^{Village,PatancheruMandal, Medak District'} Telangana-50231 9.

¶8

...RES'ONDENTS

¶9

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleasedto} issue a writ, order^{or directionmore particularlyone in the natureof the writ of} MANDAMUS declaring^{the inactionof the RespondentNo.4 in not consideringthe} complaints cum^{representationsDated 01-07-2021, 02-08-2021and 01-09-2021and} to declare the same^{as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Article'14,} 21and3O0(A)ofConstitutionoflndiaandconsequentlydirecttherespondentNo.4 to consider the complaints^{cum representationsDated 01-07'2021 , 02-08-2021and} 01-Og-2021 and to^{take appropriate action.}

¶10

IAN O:1 OF 202'l

¶11

Petition under Section^{151CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtodirectthe respondent No.4 to consider^{the complaints cum representations Dated 01-07-2021'} 02-08-2021 and 01-09-2021^{and to take appropriate action'}

¶12

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI P. JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD}

¶13

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.1& 3: GP FOR PANCHAYATRAJ AND}

¶14

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: GP FORREVENUE}

¶16

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.4: SRIG. NARENDER REDDY'}

¶17

S.C. FOR GPP/MPP/ZPP

¶18

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSTIMAN

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.2258O OF 2O2L

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the present writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage.

¶23

The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Ac. 13-02 guntas in Sy.No. 148 and Ac.9-00 guntas in Sy.No.165 situated at Indresham Village, patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The petitioner herein and others have filed a suit vide O.S.No. ll of 2006 seeking declaration, recovery of possession and for cancellation of registered sale deeds and the said suit was decreed on 07.1 l.2016 by the principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareedy. The plaintiffs therein including the petitioner herein have filed an execution petition seeking to execute the said decree and judgment. During the pendency of the same, according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is going to grant permissions to various people for construction of houses in the suit schedule property therein. Therefore, the petitioner herein has submitted a representation dated 01 .07 .2021 to the 4tr respondent. Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, the 4tn respondent did not act upon the said representation. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶24

Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the 4*,

¶25

respondent will forward the representation submitted by the petitioner to the member s of the Grampanchayat, Indresham Village and the said Grampanchayat will take steps 1n accordance with larv.

¶26

In view of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4b respondent to forward the representation of the petitioner dated 01.O2.2027 to the Grampanchayat, Indresham Viilage, which inturn shall take a decision on the said representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law_

¶27

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha11 stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

¶29

To,

¶30

//,RUE copy//^{AssiS+lilffitbtrr.JlH} SECTION OFFICER

¶31

, |!|,.uJlf,g:r3rT{8"r, rndresham Viilase, patancheru rvandat, rvedak District, 2. One CC to Sri p. Jaoacjish Chandra prasad, Advocate tOpUCl '

¶32

1. Two CCs to Gp for-panchayat Rrj ,n;;ir;;ibl"Jeropment, High Court for the .^{Stateof Telangana at Hyderjbad.} fbUfr Revenue,^'Hish' court for the state of reransana at

¶33

. riy;#n tioffi "' 5, One CC to Sri G. I'Jarenrjer Reddy, S_C. for Gpp/MpplZpp (OpUC) tnoreJriim- Vil-;s;, E;iJilie,, rr,,rahoa["nledak District,

¶34

t |!i,.?:1{ |o%.lfrrt' 7. Two CD Cooies. 8. One Spare bopy.

!L'A

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1610912021

ORDER

WP.No.22580 of²⁰²¹

1E -,r,
{U s' v*
C
ir *s (.,
"F
c ii ?\{ *

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶43

+")
,A{2-

Sama Jagan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sama Jagan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Arshad Vs The State of Telangana

Kanurnuri Raghurama Krishna Raju Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Sri Vensai Metal Vs The State of Telangana

Merugu Srinivas Goud Vs State of Telangana

M/s Buildmate Metal Industries Vs The State of Telangana

Tabassum Naaz Vs The State of Telangana