Allowed

D.Ravi Kiran v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Aug 2025WP/21578/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court made an interim order directing respondents not to demolish structures or interfere with petitioners' possession over hereditary property absolute. The petition was disposed of without costs as the interim order remained in place.

What did the court decide?

Interim order enjoining demolition and interference with possession made absolute. Writ petition disposed of without costs.

D.Ravi Kiran Vs the State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^{3302 j}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 21578 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

D.Ravi Kiran, S/o D.Narsaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ Private Employee R:/o H.No.19-278/48/3, Balaji Nagar, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad - 500044.

¶10

MRS.D.Sunitha, W/o D.Ravi Kiran, Aged about 35 years, Occ Private Employee, R/o H.No.19-27814813, Balaji Nagar, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad - 500044.

¶11

..PETITIONERS

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

f HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Hyderabad District, Having its Office at Nampally. Hyderabad.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, Marredpally Mandal, Secunderabad.

¶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 pass an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the high-handed and illegal action of the Respondents in trying to demolish the structures over the Plot No.120, admeasuring 275 sq.yds ot 229.9O sq.m ts, Sy.No.7416, situated at East l,4arredpally, Secunderabad belongs to Petitioners while interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment thereby to dispossess them without following the due process of law as it being illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutio na I and in violation of principles of natural^justice more particularly the Judgment in L.G.C.NO.167/^'1997 Dated 18.03.2011 passed by the LGC Tribunal and consequently direct the Respondents not demolish the structures over the above

¶19

said property while interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment df Petitioners over it.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

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 demolish the structures over the Plot No.1 20, admeasuring 275 sq.yds or 229.90 sq.mts, Sy.No.74 /6, situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad while interfering with the peaceful^possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.RAJESHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 21578 OF 2019 ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners ancl Mrs.S.Sravathi,^learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing^{for the} respondents ald^perused the material on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the^petitioners submits that rvhile admitting the writ^petition, this Court granted interim order on 30.09.2019 directing the respondents not to interfere^with the^possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property i.e. Plot No. 12O, admeasuring 275^Sq.Yards 1n Sy.No.74/6, situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad, without loliowing due process of law.

¶28

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court the respondents are not interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property.

sr, J w. P. No.2 l' 5-7*'of 2 o 1 9

¶33

Learned Counsel for both sides submits that the connected matter in^W.P.No. 19i06 of 201O filed by the State Government against the order in LGC.No.167 of 1997 passed by the Special Court under the A.P. Land <sup>/as Grabbing^{(Prohibition)} Act, 1982, Hyderabad, dismissed b,y the Division Bench of this Court on 28.O5.202s

¶34

In view of the submissions made by both sides and in view of the dismissal of W.P.No.19106 of 2010 on 28.05.2025, the interim order^passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of^{2019 in WP} No.21578 of 2Ol9 on 3O.09.2019 is made absolute. Accordingly, the writ^petition 1S disposed^of.

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/.^{U . SUDHA} A RE \ //TRUE^COPY' ION OFFICER

¶37

'o^{,r The Principal secretary'Revenue Department's"t'"t)J''Hyderabad'State} , i.. of TelanqanaDistrict^{Collector' Hyderabad District' Having its Office at Nampally'}

¶38

l il, $!$;egstagailsg*t1i??#ff^;,,:,, AT

¶39

¶40

Hyderabad. [OUT] 7 Two CD CoPies PSK. CJP s

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310812025

ORDER

WP.No.21578 of 2019

'-^ "i
<.
c
I (J
I 2$ UtT ilm ('
),
SnyCH o

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

\o,/
,%

D.Ravi Kiran v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ravi Kiran 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

Smt G. Latha Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Budamani Siddeshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Vadla Radha Mani Vs The State of Telangana

Gyara Sathaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sammidi Janardhan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana.

Sri. Eluri Dani Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Telangana