Dismissed

Sri.Yerraboina Srinivas, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Dec 2024WP/39302/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court for the State of Telangana dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the entry of government officials and demolition of a slab over a water body on disputed agricultural land. The court held the petition lacked merit as the petitioner failed to convert land or obtain necessary permits. No order on costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as devoid of merits; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Sri.Yerraboina Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE K. SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39302^{OF 2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri.Yerraboina Srinivas,^{S/o.Y.Balaiah,Aged 43 years' Occ Business.and} igii"ritJre, R/o.Ft No.i-s-916/1 ,^{Father Balalab Nagar Colony, old Alwal'} Secunderabad -500 010.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Secretary, RevenueDepartment'} Secretariat, Hyderabad,

¶12

2 The Revenue Divisional officer,^{siddipetDivision,siddipet, MedakDistrict.}

¶13

¶14

The Tahsildar, Wargal Mandal,^{Wargal, Medak District}

¶15

4 The Revenue Inspector, Mandal^{RevenueOffice, Wargallvlandal, Wargal,} Medak District.

¶16

5 Sri.Ganesh, S/o Not Known^{to the Petitioner,Village RevenueOfficer,} Ananthagiripally Village, Wargal^{Mandel, Wargal, Medak District'}

¶17

The Deputy Engineer, lnigation Deputy Engineer, lnigation Engineer, lnigation^{Department,Gajwel, Medak District'Medak District'}

¶18

tt The Deputy Engineer, lnigation Deputy Engineer, lnigation Engineer, lnigation^{Department,Gajwel, Medak District'Medak District'} 7 TheSublnspectorofPolice,PoliceStationGowraram,WargalMandal' Wargal, Medak District

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to pass writ or direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof writ of} Mandamus thereby declaring^{the acts of respondentsentering into petitioners} property in survey No, 42163/1^{situated at Ananthagiripally Village' Wargal} Mandal, Medak District thereby^{trying to demolishslab over katu kaluvais illegal'} void, arbitrary againbt the^{principals ofnaturaljusticeand violation of}

¶21

/ tundamental right:; of liberty and property under Article 21 and 300 A of Constitution of lnd ia

¶22

Prayer is amended as per C.O. dt. 21t1t2O1S in WpMp.No.49688/14

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO:49309 OF 20141

¶24

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court mav be pleased to grant ad-interim injr.rnction thereby restraining the respondents from entering into land in survey No.,{2i6al1 including katu kaluva, passage, newly laid RCC slab thereon situated at Ananthagiripally Village, wargal Mandal, lvledak District, without any statutory sanction pending disposal of the above writ lretition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRTDHAR LENDALAY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Res;pondent No.6: AGp FOR lRRl & COMM AREA DEV

¶28

Counsel for the Res;pondent No.7: AGp FOR HOME

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

ffi,r-:+eyz //

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE K.SARATH}

¶32

WRIT PEIITIO^{N No.39302 of 2OL4}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This writ^{petition is filed under Article 226 of th,e} Constitution^{of India, for the following relief:}

¶35

" . . ..to pcrss writ or^{directionmore particularly} one in tle^{nature of Wnt of Mandamusthereby} declaring the^{acts of respondents enteringinto} petitioner's^{propertg insurueANo'42/EE/ 1} situated at^{Anantlngiripatlg Village,Wargol} Mandal, Med.ak^{Distritt therebgtrying to demolish} slab ouer katu^{kaluua is itlegal, uoid'arbitrary} against tLrc^{pincipalsofnatural justiceand} uiolation of fundamental^{rights of libertgand} property under^{Article 21 and30O-Aof} Constitution^{of India and pass"!}

¶36

Heard learned^{counsel appearing forthe}

¶37

petitioner and^{learned Assistant Government Pleader} for Revenue,^{learned Assistant GovernmentPleader} l-lome and learned^{AssistantGovernment Pleader for} Irrigation appearing^{for the respondentsand perused} the entire^{materialon record.}

¶38

¶39

SK,J W.P.No.39302 of 2014

¶40

The grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in entering into possession of the petitioner in the suit schedule property ald trying to demolish slab over Katu Kaluva is arbitrar5r arLd illegal. 4. As per the counter filed by the respondents, the suit schedule property is an agricultural land. Without arry conversion of agricultural land into non-agri,cr:ltural land, the petitioner started construction in the irrigation canal. The resprondents, after noticing the same, have demolished some portion on of the c:onstruction made by the petitioner 18.r2.2074

¶41

The petitioners unable to produce arry relevant documer:Lt with regard to the conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultura-l land and also not made any application to the Irrigation Aurthorities or Gram Panchayat Authorities for construction and obstructing free flou, of water to water bo<lies i.e.,

¶42

¶43

SK,J W.P.No.393O2 of 2O14

¶44

Pushpalavagu (Haldivagu River). In view of the sarne, there is no merit in the writ petition.

¶45

In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. If the petitioner wants to make any construction in the agricultural land, he has to take valid permission from the competent authority and proceed with further construction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if arry

¶48

pending, shall stand clismissed.

¶49

SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

One CC to SRI SRIDHAR LENDALAY, Adrrccate lOPtrc]

¶53

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for^{the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶54

Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl & COMM^{AREA DEV, HighCourt for the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶55

Two CCs to GP FOR^{HOME, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶56

E Two CD Copies BSR /') ^ GJP YW

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1111212024

ORDER

WP.No.39302 of 2014

-< aa-
'i E '+i4 t6
c)Q
2 i iEil 2025
C)
t"-", *{'
r tlH F_O
-.,".,._i-i :.

¶62

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶63

WITHOUT COSTS (,+ ----+-^{| .} - lh .>-,'>\ \Ocol^l':

Sri.Yerraboina Srinivas, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Yerraboina Srinivas, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Salar Vs The Collector,Medak District,at Medak

B.Ramesh Reddy Vs The District Collector

Sri Padamati Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Vs The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar

Premchand Tatya, S/o Akechand (Died) Vs The District Collector

Eesam Narsamma, Vs The State of Telangana

N. Rama Vs The Tahsildar and Deputy Collector