Disposed

Venkat Shravan Kumar and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC16 Sept 2025WP/15575/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation to the relevant administrative authorities before disposing of the writ petition challenging the construction of public toilets on their land without compensation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file fresh representation within four weeks; authorities directed to consider same and pass orders.

Venkat Shravan Kumar and another Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15575 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

1, Venkat Shravan Kumar, S/o Late Yadagiri, Age 39 yrs, Occ. Agd and PvtService,R/o Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad

¶9

Venkat Venkateshwar Rao, S/o Late Yadagiri, Age 37 yrs, Occ.Pvt Employee, Rio Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

.....PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Princrpal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Diskict Collector, Mahabubnagar District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Bhoothpur, Mahbubanagar District.

¶15

The Commissioner Municipality, Boothpur, Mahbubnagar District.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 by declaring the actron of the respondent authorities in undertaklng construction of public toilets in portion of land in Sy.No.7 of Bhoothpur village, belongs to the petitioners without following the due procedures of law and without paying compensation to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, unlaMul and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authoritres not to take the land of the petitroners and not to construct public toilets in the land of the petitioners in

¶18

sy'No 7 of Bhoothpur virage without forowing the due prc( )dure of raw and arso without paying compensation to the petitioners in accordanr)( with the law.

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the (i lumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rn: r be pleased to direct the respondent authoritres not to take the rand of the ,,titioners and not to construct pubric toirets in the rand of the petitioners in sy.No of Bhoothpur vilage without following the due procedure of law and also without raying compensation to the petitioners in accordance with, the law.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners : SRI M.SALEEM

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Gp FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI N.pRAVEEN KUMAT

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.^VENUGOPAL

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.15575 of 2O2O

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is frled seeking following^relief

¶29

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature^{of WRITOF} MANDAMUS by declaring the action of^the respondent authorities in undertaking constuction of public toiletg in^{portion of land in} Sy.No.7 of Bhoothpur village belongs to^the petitioners without following the due procedures of 1aw and wrthout paying compensation to^the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful arrd^a-lso against the principles of natural^{justice and} consequently direct the respondent authorities^not to take the land of the^{petitionersarld} not^to construct public toilets in the lald of^the petitioners in Sy.No.7 of Bhoothpur village without following the due procedure of law and^a.1so without paying compensation to the^{petitioners in} aicordalce with the law and to^pass..."

¶30

2- Learned counsel for the^petitioners would submit^that petitioners are the owners and pattedars of land in^Survey Nos.4, 5, 7 and B of Boothpur^{Revenue Villagewhich has} been inherited through their grandfather.^{He wouldfurther} submit that during the lifetime^{of petitioners' grandfatherhe} has donated some part of land in^{Survev No.7 for the}

¶31

¶32

purpose of construction of school aIId preser.l y, the school is existing in the said survey number. St : would a-lso submit that Joint Collector, (Land Acqurr .tion^'Officer) Mahabubnagar has issued notifir: tion vide No.Gl/165/2OO4 dated 04.07.2007 for widerr :rg of road in Bhootpur village. Accordingly, title docume: -s have been submitted before the said authority and the ompensation to the extent of road widening hJs been paid o them. But due to illegal construction of Government offir :s and roads without. paying arry compensation to the petitioners, petitioners have submitted a representation or 15.o2.2007, seeking rightful compensation, but the sir ne was not considered by the respondents. Aggrieved I y the same, W.P.No.12619 of 2016 was filed by the famili members of the petitioners seeking direction to pay the cor-r rensation for :ation. petitioners land and same is pending for adjudi

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners woulc submit that the case of the petitioners claiming compens€1. ion from the authorities is neither considered nor reject: L He also submit that official respondents are attemptin ? to construct public toilets in the lald pertaining to th, petitioners

¶34

without following due process of law which would ultimately affecting the rights of the petitioner herein. Objecting the said action, petitioners submitted a representation dated 22.O8.2O2O to respondent No.2 ald the same is also pending. He would further submit that petitioner is constrained to frle this writ petition and would seek to allow this writ petition and pass appropriate orders, in accordarce with law.

¶35

(

¶36

4 . On the other hand, learned Assistalt Government pleader for Revenue would sr-ibmit that the representation was submitted by the petitioners on 22.Og.2O20 i.e., when Covid- 19 Pandemic restrictions were in force and since then, long time has lapsed and hence, would seek the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.3 ald upon being made, respondent No.3 would take appropriate action on the same.

¶37

Recording the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistalt Government pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to hle a fresh representation to respondent Nos.2 ald 3 within ,

¶38

period of four (4) weeks from the date of recei: . of a copy of this order arrd on such representation reing made, respondents are directed to consider the sar re and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as rxpeditiously as possible

¶39

6 With the above directions, this writ petiti,r I is disposed

¶40

of. No costs.

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaleous applications L; aly, stalds closed.

¶42

SI)-K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASiI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶43

¶44

t' {---./ SECTION OFFICER

¶45

' r:irIJI;ffl f;i3!",1il;r*"'enue^{Department,Secret,,at Buitdings, srate or}

¶46

3 IE Pl]1S,,^{coilector,tvtahabubnagar District} r. tne tahstldar, Bhoothour, Mahbubanagar District. 4. The Commissioner lVlunicipality Boothfiur, Irii, f.,O'uUnrg, .District. never'rtie liisiii"C;tifi;ffi; st, : or reransana at t ly;":,n|" StiP-

¶47

9 9n"^{CCto SRt M SALEEN/.} Advocate tOpUCl 7 one cC to SRt N pRAVEEN kurvrXn] hi'rJ#" topu,; 8. Two CD Copies SA BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610912025

ORDER

WP.No.15575 of 2020

'$HE S
(
I
7_
t 0 3 ri8 7l]2$
)
*
\ *

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

rdl"
*'

Venkat Shravan Kumar and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkat Shravan Kumar and another 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

Smt. Barla Savithri Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Syed Bhadroddin , Bader Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

D Mallaiah Vs State of Telangana

Elangandula Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Kambhampati Seenaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Golla Ramudu Ramanna Vs The State of Telangana