Allowed

Jahangir Pasha Sk v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC18 Jan 2022WP(PIL)/8/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner challenged the State Government's inaction on a representation for land allotment for a Muslim graveyard, seeking a direction to the District Collector to decide the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector to consider representation dated 22.12.2021 regarding land allotment and pass orders within three months.

Jahangir Pasha Sk Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT PETITION^(PIL ) NO: 8 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jahangir Pasha Sk, S/o. Murthuza Shaik, Aged about 44 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. Plot No. 32, Pragathi Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, BRKR Bhawan, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Medchal Malkaigiri District}

¶15

The Tahsildar, Uppal^{It4andal,tvledchal Malkajgiri District.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

petition under Article 226 of the Constitutiln of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} toissueanappropriatewritorderordirectionmorepartiCularlyinthenatureofWrit ofMandamusunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiadeclaringtheactionof the respondents^{herein in not consideringthe Petitioners representationdated} 22.12.2021 requesting^{to allotAc. 5-00 Guntas of landfor the purposeof Muslim} Graveyard in^{Ramanthapur locality by followingthe G O. Ms No' 1235of Revenue} Assignment-I, dated^{25.10.2008 is as being illegal'arbitraryand unconstitutional} andforotherreliefsandviolationofArticles14,2land3oo.Aofconstitutionoflndia andconsequentlydlrecttheRespondentshereintoconsiderthePetitioners representation^{daled 22.12.2021,in the interest of justice'}

¶18

IA NO: 't^{oF 2022}

¶19

Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct} theRespondentshereintoconsiderthePetitionersrepresentationdated22'12'2021 forthwith'PendingdisposalofthemainWritPetition,intheinterestofiuStiCe.

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI M' A' MUJEEB}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶22

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶23

¶24

RA JUS^TICE N'BLE^THE AND HON^{,BLESRIJUSTICE ABIIINAND} S

¶25

THE HON'BLE^THE

¶26

THE

¶27

W.P lPILI.No.S^{of 2O22}

¶28

ORDER: eer^{the Hon'ble the Chie| Justice SotishChandra Sharnto/}

¶29

The present^{publicinterestlitigationhas been filed by} the petitioner^{stating that there is acute shortageof land for} the purpose of^{burialand therefore,a requestwas madeto} the State Government^{for ailotmentof iand for the purpose of} Muslim^{graveyard in Ramanthapurlocality' Ithas been} stated that a^{representation has been preferred to the District} Collector on 22.12.2021'^{Howeverf nothing has been done in} the matter.

¶30

Learned Government^{Advocate appearing forthe} Revenue is fair enough in stating^{beforethis Court that the} writ petition be disposed^{of with a direction to the District} Collector to pass appropriate^{orders inrespectof the} representation dated 22.12.2021 and^{inthe matter of} a-llotment of land for the^purpose of Muslim^graveyard'

¶31

Resultantly, without averting to the^{merits of the case,} the writ petition is disposed^{of with a direction to the District} Collector, Medchal Maikajgiri District,^todecidethe representation dated^{22.12.2021 after takinginto account all} the grounds mentioned in the^{representationfor allotmentof} land for the purpose of Muslim^{graveyardwithin a period of} three months from today.

¶32

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶33

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

S D/. MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

¶35

To, SECT|ON OFFICER

¶36

' Iffi-:iliii3l|.:&%:"r'^{Revenue Department,state or rerangana,} BRKR

¶37

The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶38

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medchal Malkajgirl District.

¶39

The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandat, Medchal [\rlalkajgiri District.

¶40

One CC to SRI M. A. MUJEEB, Advocate tOpUCl 6 Two ccs to GP for Revenue, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

Two CD Copies.

¶42

B. One Spare Copy.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810112022

ORDER

WP(PIL).No.8 of 2022

rtE sIA
1l:
2 g ,lAil 2022
i

¶52

DrsPostNG oF THE WRIT^pETtTtON (ptL) WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

qa
r.l

Jahangir Pasha Sk v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahangir Pasha Sk v. The State of Telangana and 3 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

Raghav Tanaji Vs Union of India and Another

M/s. Comint Systems and Solutions Pvt. Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Zainab W/o S.M.Zakirah (Ct No.3893) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shetti Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kalvakuntla Tejeshwar Rao and Another Vs M/s Srija Infrastructures and 7 Others

Vislavath Sangameshwar Vs The State of Telangana and 13 others