Disposed¶35

Nawazuddin Mohammed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jul 2025WP/14980/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized construction on agricultural patta land; Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No. 51A/2, Gingurthi village, Tandur mandal, Vikarabad District; construction without Gram Panchayat permission; Panchayat Secretary notices dated 19.04.2025, 24.04.2025, 02.05.2025 to cease construction; inaction of District Collector, District Panchayat Officer, Divisional Panchayath Officer; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; I.A. No.1 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC; Telangana Panchayat Raj Act enforcement undertaking; Nawazuddin Mohammqd v. State of Telangana & others; Rathod Kishan Naik; writ petition closed without costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was closed without adjudication and without costs, in view of respondent No.5's counter-affidavit submissions. ¶35

Nawazuddin Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was closed without adjudication and without costs, in view of respondent No.5's counter-affidavit submissions.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of official respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in not taking action on the petitioner's complaints against the illegal/unauthorized construction raised by respondent No.6 on the petitioner's agricultural patta land (Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No. 51A/2, Gingurthi village, Tandur mandal, Vikarabad District) without Gram Panchayat permission is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, warranting a writ of mandamus directing them to take immediate action. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In view of respondent No.5's counter-affidavit submissions (notices issued to respondent No.6 to stop the construction; construction stopped; further action to be taken under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act), and petitioner's counsel submitting that no further orders were necessary, the writ petition is closed; there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 14980 of 2025 (with I.A. No. 1 of 2025 u/s 151 CPC), decided 07.07.2025 by Smt Justice T. Madhavi Devi (single judge). Petitioner Nawazuddin Mohammqd, an agriculturist of Gingurthi village, Tandur mandal, Vikarabad District, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring the inaction of official respondents 2 to 5 on his complaints against unauthorized construction raised by respondent No.6 (Rathod Kishan Naik) on his agricultural patta land measuring Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No. 51A/2, Gingurthi village, without Gram Panchayat permission, and directing them to act. Respondent No.5 (Panchayat Secretary) counter-affidavited that notices dated 19.04.2025, 24.04.2025 and 02.05.2025 were issued to respondent No.6 to stop the construction; that the construction has been stopped and respondent No.6 was directed not to build without valid permission; and that further action would follow under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act. Petitioner's counsel conceded no further orders were necessary; the writ petition was accordingly closed without costs and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

¶1

[^321e I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 149s0 OF 2025

¶8

Between

¶9

Nawazuddin Mohammqd, S/o. Moulana sab, Aged 45 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 5-1 2, Gingurthi Village, Ta nd ur, Vikaribad Di-strct.

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telanga.n?, Bep, by its principar secretary panchayath Raj Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Vikarabad District.

¶14

The District Panchayat Officer, Vikarabad District, Vikarabad.

¶15

The Divisional Panchayath Officer, Tandur Division, Vikarabad District.

¶16

The .Pan-chayat .sgp1e!ary, Grampanchayath, Gingurthi Village, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District.

¶17

Rathod Kishan Na!k, s/o. Lakshman Naik, Aged about 50 years, occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.6-44, Gingurthi Village, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Pe-tition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be "ir#rces pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Di.rection, rnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the official respondents 2 to 5 for not taking any action on petitioner complaintsdi.i 6tO4l2O2S against illegal construction made in petitioner agriculture patta land to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No. 5lAl2, situated at Gingurthi village, Tandur mandal, Vikarabad District by the 6th respondent herein is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona! and consequently directing the respondents No. 2 to 5 to take immediate action on unauthorized constructions raising by the 6th respondent on petitioner land without obtaining any permissions from Gram panchayat

¶20

lA NO: I OF 2025

¶21

Petition under section 151 cPc praylng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the re:spondent No.5 to take immediate action on unauthorized constructions raising by the 6th respondent on petitioner land without obtaining any permissions from Gram panchayat

¶22

Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRl. M. PHANI KUMAR REp By MS. LINGAMPALLY AKSHITH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRt K. PRADEEP REDDY, SC

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.6:-

¶25

The Court ma<te the following: ORDER

¶26

I (

¶27

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶28

WRIT PETITION No. 14980^{OF 20.25}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

In this writ petition, the^{petitioner is aggrievedby} the inaction on the^{part of respondentNo.S in taking} action against the illegal^{construction being made by} respondent No.6 in the^{petitioner'sagricultural patta} land.

¶31

¶32

2 Respondent No.5 has filed^{a counter aJlidavit} stating t]lat they have^{issued noticesdated} 19.O4.2O25,24.04.2025 and^{O2.O5-2O25 tothe} respond.ent No.6 to stop^{the construction and that the} construction has been^{stopped and respondent No.6} was directed not to make^{any construction without any} valid permission. It is^{also stated that respondent} No.S will take further action^{as per the provisions of} the Telangana PanchaYat^{Raj Act.}

¶33

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above submissions made by respondent No'S in the counter aflidavit, ro further orders are oeceSS;€uy in this writ petition.

¶35

4' I. view of the above, the writ petition is closed. There srha]l be no order as to costs.

¶36