Sri.D.Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Sri.D.Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directions issued: respondent No. 4 to submit his report consequent to the memo dated 01.03.2024 (if not already submitted) within two months from receipt of a copy of the order, and thereafter respondent No. 3 to take action thereon in accordance with law; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to initiate action, as per due process of law, against the structures constructed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 on the petitioner's agricultural land at Singitham Village, Raikode Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, despite Memo No. 416/2024/A-Pts dated 01.03.2024, is illegal and warrants issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Court's answer

The Court directed respondent No. 4 to submit his report consequent to the memo dated 01.03.2024 (if not already submitted) within two months from receipt of a copy of the order, and thereafter respondent No. 3 to take action thereon in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Writ of mandamus against inaction of Panchayat Raj authorities - Petitioner (D. Ravinder) complained (complaint dated 23.02.2023; representation dated 23.02.2024) of structures constructed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 without valid title or permissions on his agricultural land at Singitham Village, Raikode Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, alleging violation of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and Articles 14 and 21 - A memo dated 01.03.2024 (described in the prayer as issued by respondent No. 2, and in the order as issued by the District Panchayat Officer) referred the matter to the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Zaheerabad for report and action, but no action followed for over nine months - Notices on respondent Nos. 6 to 9 served, no appearance put in; official respondents filed no counter affidavit - Held: respondent No. 4 to submit his report consequent to the memo dated 01.03.2024, if not already submitted, within two (02) months from receipt of copy of the order, and thereafter respondent No. 3 to take action thereon in accordance with law - Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed (Smt. Justice T. Madhavi Devi, 28.01.2025).

t^321e1

TE:ANGANA

HIGH couRr'?T ITED:IiffisF -Oiiginal J urisdiction) (speciai

TUESDAY ,THE^{TWENTY EIGHTHDAYOf.JANUARY} '""'- T,VO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICET'MADHAVIDEVI} WRIT PETI^{TIONNO:1 0092 0F 2024}

Between:

Sri.D.Ravinder,^{Sio'D'sulthaiah'ag'edabo} ',*t"'rf ,"3'":'iir.?il-i[?lJ"".l Ei)i" Cp'ri[ otr.,^{No.21lc,rvpe-ll'lndira} Rlnga^{ReOdYDist''T'S}

...PETITIONER

AND

I il: +u#;il+:fl.fttirU*ueffi^#;;': Zaheerabad ,TS

:it[f#,i-s#tx{nffi iqiil''e'+f,;",*;'$i;'ffi1; ,^{glit0:tiHr',#33lgui"n,, sro' L}rI N"lTPtfu',nfixrioo#' 33rlnT"*s"& Aoriculture,^Fl/o'

:l###m,,:u+ 257 ...RESPONDENTS

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith' the High Courtmay be} pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,orderordirectionsmoreparticularlyonein the nature^{of Writ of Mandamus' declaringthe action of the respondents more} particularly^{the respondentsNo'4 and 5 in not initiating the actionas per due} process of^{law against the illegal structures constructed by the respondentsNo- 6} to 9, in^{the petitioners agricultural land admsg ' Ac'0-03gts in Sy'' No'8i g/'t '}

situated at Singitham Vi,age, Raikode Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, TS, without any varid ti'e and permissions, in spite of issuance of Memo vide No. 41612024rA_ Pts, dated..1- O3_2t)24 pts by the respondent No.2, up on the petitioners comptaint dated.23_02_2023, since then to till this date, as highly illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Terangana panchayathraj Act_201g and vioration of Articre 14 and 210f constitution of rndia and consequenry direct the respondents more particularly the respondents No.4 and Sto initiate necessary action against the iregar structures constructed by the respondent No'6 to g ' in the petitioners above mentioned agricurturar rand forthwith by following due process; of law

IANO:1O F 2024

petition under isection 15 r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in s;upport of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents; mo the Memo v de *,, r.,'l,liilii:.l'r:::Tffi1il:'.-";i""::,."", T1r: forthwith by foilowing due process of taw, pending disposat of ;:Ht"" #.2

Counset for the petitioner: SRl. BETHI VENKATESWARLU

S8xff:i I# li: [:##:ll $33: 3; AGPRF.RRI'ENUE

sc Fo_#fllfiHfi5,.iglr

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6to9: SRI y. SATYA KUMAR

The Court made the following: ORDER

7

STICE^{T. MADHAVI} rHE HoNouRABLE "fltl*'u

PETI^{TIONNo.1 oo92 of2o24}

ORDER:

ORDER: 1S filed,^{under Article 226 of the} This writ Petition Constitutionoflndia,seekingthefollowingrelief:

".-.to^{issuean appropiateunt' order or directionsmore} partiantarlg^{one in th'e nafire of Writ of Mandamusdeclaing} tlrc action^{of therespondents more particttlarlrl tte} respondents^{No'4and 5 in not initiatingtle actionas per due} process of^{lau-t againsttle illegal structures constructed bg} the respondents^{No'6to 9 in the petitionersagiculturalland} admeasuing^{Ac'0-O3gts inSg'No'8/ A/ 1'situatedat} Singitham^{Village' Raikode Mandal'Sanga Reddy Distnct'TS} uithout^{any ualid title andpermissions in spite of issuanceof} Memo^{uideNo'416/2O24/A-Pts' dated 01'03'2024Pts bg the} respondent^{No'2 up on the petitionerscomplaintdated} 23.02'2023^{since then to tilt thb date as highlg illegal'bad'} orbitrary^{and contrary to tlrc prouisionsof tle Telangana} Panclngathraj^{Act-2018 and uiolation of Article14 and 21 of} Constitution^{of India ond a n'sequentlg direct the respondents} more^{partianlarlg tlerespond'ents No'4 and 5 to initiate} necessary^{actionagain'st tle illegal structures constructedbA} tLrc respondents^{No'6 to 9 in the petitioners aboue mentioned} agianlhral^lond forthuith^{bg foltott'ting due process of latu} and to Pass..."

2 Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submitted that the} petitioner has submitted^{representation'd'ated23 'O2 '2024}

\

-__-

which has been referred by the District Panchayat Officer, in his memo, dated 01.03 .2024 and the Divisional panshaya6 Officer, Zaheerabad was directed to iook into the matter and submit a report and take action in accordance with law thereafter It is submitted that in spite of iapse of more than ntne months, the respondents have not taken any action thereon and hence this writ petition has been filed.

In th is rvrit petition, though notices were served on respondent Nos.6 to 9 no appearance has been put in by them. Ev,:n 16" Official respondents have not tiled any counter affidavit till date.

In vit:r.r, of the same and in the interest of justice, this court deerns it fit and proper to direct respondent No.4 to submit his report consequent to the memo dated, 01.O3.2O24, if not subrrritted already, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, respondent No.3 shall take action thereon in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this writ petition 1S disposed of. There shail be no order^{as to costs.}

6.Miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shallstand

closed.

\

SD/-A.V.S.^PRASAD

ASSISTANT^REGTST

//TRUE^COPY//

SEC N OFFICER

to'1. ,* Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department' Telangana Secretariat' Hvderabad, T.S

, T#biti;;d^{io"llector, Sanga Reddv District'alSanoaReddv'TS} 3. rhe District^{eancnaflri5iiYc:e;,$;g;'R;&'v-Dstric-t'at SarisaReddv'rS} ;. +ii;bili;';;rrC;";h;v;ih^{orfi"e', Zir'"e"o"dDivisionand District' at}

Zaheerabad ,TS

1. it; %;;h;vat^{Secretary, Gramapanchavlth of Singithal Village'} " si rio it[r;Viiirg",nri[oi;, rrltanoat I ge l.se. Bpu.dy District'rS 6 6#'bE' 6^{s Rl.'B Eiiiinii'l KAiE5wAnl-u'eovocateroPU cl} 7. Two ccs^{to GP ron il;iN-cHnini nll qLJqnLDEVELoPMENT'High} ' Coutt roi tne State of ielingana at Hyderabad [oU!

B. il;'cc;u^{cF Fon'ievEr.rueHigicourtfoithestate of Telansana,at}

Hvderabad [OUTI

s. iii';,"ctt"^{SRt.h. crnuonn sHEKARREDDY'sc FoR GRAM} PANCHAYAT [OPUC]

ro.i:ri" 6c i6'sni.^{v. sAwn KUMAR, Advocate[oPUC]}

11.Two CD^CoPies

BM BS ( r

HIGH COURT

CC TODAY

DATED:28 t01t2OZs

/,t r)T,ir ti- tJ,<
r-) 3 1 l}'il 1l$15
I 4-:!
1,7
\a"r,-l" 4 .-. - .. ,.'/

ORDER

WP.No.10092 of 2OZ4

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

?+ 3L t-s \5q')

--l