Disposed

Ravula Naresh, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Dec 2024WP/23614/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging that revenue authorities and GHMC were attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his plot without notice or due process. No counter-affidavit was filed by respondents in over eight years. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession except through due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession of the property without following due process of law; no costs.

Ravula Naresh, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t ll i I

¶2

[³³⁰² ]

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 23614 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

RAVULA NARESH, S/o Ravula Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No.6-8-132, Sagara Veedhi, Chowrastha Hanmakonda, Warangal, Warangal District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Building, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad.

¶14

J The Joint Collector - l, Ranga Reddy District Lakadikapool, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

5 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in trying to dispossess the Petitioner from his property i.e., Plot No.236 in Sy.No.66/2, admeasuring 520 sq.yds, situated at Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality Ranga Reddy District without issuing any notice, without following the due procedure laid down under Law as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and in violation of principles of natural^justice and also in violation of Articles²¹ and 300-4 of the Constitution of lMia and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner from his the above said property by interfering

l II i I

with his possession over the same without following the due^process laid down under Law.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 29104 OF 2016)

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner from his plot bearing No.236 in Sy.No.66/2, admeasuring 520 sq.yds, situated at Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality Ranga Reddy District by interfering with his possession illegally without following the due process of law and pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI M.SAHAS REDDY, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K.RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

I i i i ttI i t t !

¶30

I i

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.23614 OF 2016

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶34

Constitution of India seeking the lollowing relief:

¶35

'...to issuc an appropriate Writ, C)rder or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action o[ respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his property i.e., Plot No.236 in Sy.No.66/2, admeasuring 520 sq. yds., situated at Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality Ranga Reddy District without issuing any notice, without following the due proccdure laid down under Lanv as arbitrary, illegal, unjustiiied and in violation oI principles of natural^justicc and also in violation of Arlicles 2L and 3O0-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his the abovc said property by interfering with his pr.rsscssion ovor thc samc without following the due process laid dou'n under law and pass..."

¶36

¶37

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner, Sri M.Sahas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pieader lor Revenue for the respondents.

¶38

Learned counsel lor the petitioner submits that at the time of admission this Court granted interim orders on 19.O7 .2.O i6 dirccting both the parties to maintain status-quo existing as on l-hat date.

¶39

s t<,J w.l'.No.2J614 OF 2016

¶40

¶41

In spite of lapse of more than eight (08) years, the respondents did not choose to file counter-affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the suit schedule property, without issuing notice and without following due procedure laid down under law.

¶42

In view ol the above circumstarrces, the rrit petition is disposed ol directing the rcspondents not to interfere with the possession of the property of the petitioner, without follo',ving duc proccss o[ law. There shall be no order as to costs

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶44

closed.

¶45

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// ECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

1 The Principal^{Secretary'Revenue Department' SecretariatBuilding'} Hyderabad,^{State of Telangana'}

¶48

TheDistrictcollector,RangaReddyDiStrict,Lakadikapool,Hyderabad.

¶49

r-{k

¶50

1 TheJointCollector-l,RangaReddyDistrictLakadikapool,Hyderabad. 4 The Tahsildar,^{Serilingampally Mandal,Serilingampally' Ranga Reddy District}

¶51

4 C The commissioner,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipalcorporation'Lower Tank} Bund,^HYderabad

¶52

One CC^{to SRI S.PRABHAKARREDDY' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶53

¶54

One CC^{to SRI K RAVINDERREDDY' SC FOR GHMC [OPUC]}

¶55

7 8 Two CCs^{to GP FOR REVENUE' HighCourt for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶56

Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0611212024

ORDER

WP.No.23614 of 2016

1t'
Jc
i) 2 1 t{At{ 2025 C,
I)F 5 r:1.1 1-, t\r,o
.t-.

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

@'[[,r,;

Ravula Naresh, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravula Naresh, 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

R. Devender Reddy and Another Vs the District Collector, Rr Dist and 5 Others

Y.Sree Jayanthi, Vs State of Telangana, Rep by its Pri. Secretary to Government

Chinala Mysaiah, (Died as per LRs P3 to P6) Vs the Jt.Collector at Hyderabad and 3 Others

Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, (Died as per Lr P2) Vs State of Ap,Dist Collector,Khammam,and 4

Bairi Rakesh Kumar Vs Ramana Reddy

Bhukya Shankar Vs Smt. a. Vani Prasad, IAS