Dismissed

Bsg Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2025WP/21750/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking directions to revenue authorities to act on the petitioner's representations concerning mutation/implementation of prior proceedings in respect of land in Sangareddy/Nalgonda. Counsel submitted the representation had been considered and sought dismissal; the court dismissed the petition as infructuous without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bsg Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32ee l

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WR|T PETITION NO: 21750 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

BSG Engineers Pvt. Ltd, a company incorporated under the lndian Companies Act,1956, represented by its Director, Sri.B.Tarachand, S/o Sri.B.Sarat Gopal, Aged years, Occupation: Business Rl/o plot No^'155, Road No 13-A, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Collector, Sangareddy District., (formerly Medak District), Sangareddy,

¶13

The Tehsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition rnder-ArticleJ26-of{he-Constitution of lndia praying -thatin{he-. circumstances stated in the-bffidavit filed therewith, the High Court may.9e ...- ,,.,,.. pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in

¶16

the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent on

¶17

the representation given by the petitioner dated 6111 l2O2O as being illegal,

¶18

arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent no.3 to process the repreSbntalio@-the mutation procEGd rngs oaleo

¶19

1Ol1Ol2O18 within a time frame

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶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 Respondent No.3 to consider my representation dated 611 1 l2O2Opraying for implementation of the proceedings dated 10/10/2018 in file

¶22

no.Bt7 471t2018 of the^{respondentno.3 in respect of lantl admeasuringabout} Ac.2-26.48gts., in sy.nos.62lE^{(Ac.O-21gts.), 62/EE (0-25gts} )'^{63iAA(1-01gts')'} 73lAA(O-25gts.) of^{VelimalaVillage, Ramachandrapuram[t landal,sangareddy} District and^pending such^{consideration direct the reslx ndent no.3 not to} entertain any document^{if presentedfor registrationin rer; rect of the property} comprised in the above^{said sy.nos.}

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI R RANGANATHAN} Counsel for the Respondents:^{SR! H. RAKESH, AGP FORl? :VENUE} The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶24

.//

¶25

THE HOITOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 21750 of 2O2O

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ is filed seeking following relief:

¶29

"...to issue a urit of flnndomtr.s to direct the respondent Nos.2 and. 3 to take appropriote tegat adion as per lana o'goinst respond.erd Nos.4 to 6 bg implenEnling the ord.ers t E.A.NI.173/ 2OO9 in E P. No.164/ 2OO9 in O.S. No. t 15/ 1994 on the file of Junior Ciuil Judge at Nalgonda Distrid qnd. o,lso A-5. No.46/ 1997 on the fiLe of ls AD] Nalgondo and an-seqtentlg dedare tle aaion of the respondert Nos.2 and. 3 as illegal" arbitmry agairat to the prirciptes of rwtural jrt-stie for no! onsideing the petitiorer representations dt19/03/2018, 11/08/2018 and. 19/08/2O19 in respect of land admeasuing Ac3.22 gts in Sg.No.S/EE and land adm Ac.1-37 gts in Sg. No.s/ E, total lanL odm AcS.2g gts situated ot Khoi Rarrloran Viiloge, Thippafthi Reuenue Mand.ol. Nolgonda Distrid, Telangats. &ate... "

¶30

Heard Sri R.Rangaaathal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶31

When the matter is taken up for hearing, appearing online, learned counsel for tl:e petitioner would fairly submit that the cause in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication as the representation made by the peLitioner already considered by the official respondents,

¶32

¶33

and hence seeks to dismiss this writ r retition as infructuous.

¶34

l,earned Assistant Government Pleader f rr Revenue appearing on behalf of official respondents con< edes to the submission made by learned counsel for the peti ioner.

¶35

Recording the submissions of learned cou rsel for the petitioner and learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Revenue, this writ petition is dismissed as i rfructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pen<t ng shall

¶37

also stand closed

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

SD/-A, JAYASREE
S\ iTANT REGISTRAR
I
FECT]ON OFF]CER

¶40

To,

¶41

One CCIo SRI R RANGANATHAN, Advocate [OPUC] I

¶42

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Courtforthe Stzt : of Telangana. lourl

¶43

Two CD Copies

¶44

PVL w BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 210912025

ORDER

WP.No.21750 of 2020

(' I THE S la
,J-)
to 5 il18 2026
*
I ) t
:--=#.SparnrrE.)

¶50

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS G%

Bsg Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bsg Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. P.Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mulpuri Sakkubai Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Sk Chanbi Vs The State of Telangana

Ramasahayam Shakuntala Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Rathod Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Narender Rao Vs The State of Telangana