Dismissed

Bandla Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telgangana and 8 Others

Telangana HC10 Feb 2022WP/7179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition under Article 226 concerning land possession disputes. The Court held that the factual aspect required a full-fledged trial by a competent civil court and refrained from exercising judicial review, directing the petitioner to seek remedies in a suit.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, directing the petitioner to work out remedies before a competent Civil Court.

Bandla Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telgangana and 8… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

WR IT PETITION NO 7179 0F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bandela Venkateshwarlu, S/o Eswaraiah, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No. 3-15, Baopet Village, Elakthurthy Mandal, Warangal Urban District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1. The State of Telgangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Warangal Urban District.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Warangal District.

¶14

Sri Bandela Kumaraswamy

¶15

Sri B. Vamsy,

¶16

Sri Pydi,

¶17

Sri Sammaiah,

¶18

Sri Upender,

¶19

(All R/o. Baopet Village, Elakthurthy lvlandal, Warangal Urban District)

¶20

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more pa(icularly one in the nature of writ of l,4andamus declaring the action of the respondents-3 and 4 in not considering the representation of the petitioner daled 2711112021 and not taking action as per the Law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Law and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents-3 and 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27111t2021 and take action as per the Law in the interest of justice.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayinq that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents-3 & 4 to consider the representation of the petitionet dated 27l1jl2o2j and take action as per the Law in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.RAMAKRISHNA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 4: GP FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.s to 9: None Appeared

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHEFI

¶30

WRI T PETITION No.7179 OF 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This W it Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filt d by the petitioner, seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not considering the represen:ation of the petitioner dated 27.11.2021, as illegal and arbitrary and consequen y direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider tl e representation dated 27.Ll.2027 of the petitioner.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Go /ernment^pleader For Home appeanng for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and perused the record.

¶34

It is trought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for he petitioner that inadvertently, the nomenclature of the petition( r is wrongly mentioned as^,,Bandla Ven kateshwarlu,, instead of " landela Venkateshwarlu,,. In view of the same, the nomenclatur: of the petitioner shall be read as "Bandela Venkateshw rrlu".

¶35

The g'ievance of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.1.19 guntas in Sy.355/A and Acs.0.035 guntas in Sy.No.3S5/B, totat admeasurin I Acs.2.13 guntas, situated at Ananthasagar Village, Hasanparth Mandal, Warangal Urban District, and the unofficial respondentl are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment rf the said lands. ThereFore, he made a rep.esentation

¶36

¶37

dated^{27.11.2021 beforethe respondent No'3-DistrictCollector'} Warangal^{UrbanDistrict,seekingprotection of his property'}

¶38

As^{seen from the materialplacedon record' there is a} dispute between^{the petitioner and the unofficialrespondentsin} relation to^{the landin question' It is relevant to state that the} factual aspect,^{such as, whetherthe unofficialrespondentsare} trying to^{interferewith the possessionof petitioner over the subject} lands, is^{required to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court'} where evidence^{is required to be Iead and documents are required} to be examined.^{That cannot be adverted to/answeredby this} Court exercising^{the powerof judicial review underArticle 226 of} the Constitution^{of Indla' It is settled law that ifin a petitionfiled} under Article^{226 of the ConstitutionofIndia 'complicated} questions of^{fact which requirea regular and full-fledged trialare} involved,^{it is but prudent that the Court should refrainfrom} entertaining^{such petition and relegate thepartyto the normal} remedy^{to obtain redressin a suit' In the given circumstances of} the case,^{no relief as sought by the petitionei can be granted in} thiswritpetition.However,itisopenforthepetitionertoworkout theremediesbeforecompetentCivilCourt,inaccordanceWithlaw'

¶39

6 With the^{above observations,the Writ Petition is disposedof'} Miscellaneous^{Petitions, if any' pendingin this Writ Petition} shall stand^{closed There shall be no order as to costs'} SDi-K.ONESIM ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR (- /i TRUE^COPY// S ECTION^OFFICER To 1. 2.3 ?*iEE:"rsffi^{tEHffii:1ffi.rffifiill'Hi"Lil:::neii:i3i"'l'} 4 Two C.D.^Coples 5 One SPare^CoPY MRC SW +

HIGH COURT

OATED:101021202

ORDE R

WP.No.717g of 2^t22

2a
l'c'
<br>.*
scY
<br>c
.1,$'-
rli,

¶45

DISPOSING OF IHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS''S

¶46

lrq
)
3
ls,u
1

Bandla Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telgangana and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandla Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telgangana and 8 Others

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

Gonur Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Abdullah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sangi Shetty Butchi Babu and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 12 Others

The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank

Vishal Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd.Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others