Dismissed

Bandi Veera Raghavulu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jul 2025WP/28218/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging LTR proceedings concerning agricultural lands in Aswaraopet Mandal. Counsel for private respondents submitted that a CMA against the impugned order was already allowed before the Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, rendering the writ petition not maintainable. The court recorded this and dismissed the petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bandi Veera Raghavulu Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 282'18 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bandi Veera Raghavulu, S/o. Subrahmanyam, Age 68^ye ars, Occ Agriculturist, Fl/o. D.No.8-137, Aswaraopet^(V), Aswaraopet^(M), Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by lts Principle Secretary,^{(TribalWelfare),} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

Special Deprty Collector,^(TW), Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri^Kothagudem District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Aswaraopeta, Bhadradri Kothagudem^Dist.

¶14

4- IVlaneni Nageswarao, S/o Pullaiah, Age and Occu.^{Not Known,Rl/o.Bethupalli} Gagaram (V), Sathupalli^(lV1), Khammam District.

¶15

Sanaboind Laxmi, W/o Venkatakrisna, Age and Occu.^{Not Known,Ryo.} Sathupalli, Khammam District.

¶16

Sarnaboina Bhagya Laxmi, W/o Nagaraju,^{Age and Occu.Not Known, Fl./o.} Sathupalli, Khammam District.

¶17

Dongd Vishnu Avatharam, Age and Occu.^{Not Knownrs/o.Surya.Chandra} RaoI R/o. Gurrala Cheruvu^-(V) Aswaraopeta^{(ttil) Bl{adradri Kothagudem} District.

¶18

B. Gangula Laxmi, W/o Laxmaiah, Age and^{Occu. Not Known,Fl/o Sathupalli (V)} and (lvl), Khammam District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lLrdia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ^particularly in the^{nature of} ifandamus duly declaring the impugned^proceedings vide^{LTR Case No.} 06/2019/ASPT, in regard to our lands in Sy NO. 367^{(Ac. 1-'13gts),368 (0.029ts)'} 369 (1.039ts),370 (3.19sts),371^{(0.259ts),372 (0.379ts),373('10.049ts),374} (1.06gts),375 (2.089ts),377 (3.199ts) and 379^(0.33fts) aggregating^{to an extent} of Ac.26.24 gts situated at Naramvarigudem^{Village, Aswaraopeta Mandal of}

¶21

Khammam District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural .justice^{and consequently set aside the same in the interest cf justice} lA NO:^'l OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the oircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ccuft may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings vide LTR Case No. 06/2101 9iASPT, in regard to our lands in Sy NO.367 (Ac. 1-13gts),368 (0.029tr;) 369 (1.039ts),370 (3.l9sts), 371 (0.259ts), 372 (0.371ts), 373 (10.049ts), 374 (1 06sts), 375 (2.089ts), 377 (3.199ts) and 379 (0.33fts) aggregating to an extent of Ac.26.24 gts situated at Naramvarigudem Village, Aswaraopeta Vlandal of Khammam District, in the interest of^justice

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. RAMA SHARANA SHAIIMA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to2: GP FOR SOCIAL \ryELFARE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4to7: SRI D. THARUN llLlMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.8:-

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.28218 of 2O24

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri^D.Tharun Kumar, iearned counsel for respondent^{Nos.4 to 7 submitted} that as against the impugned order, Civil^{Miscellaneous} Appeal i.e., C.M.A.No.57 of 2021 is filed^before the^learned Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, arrd the^{same is} a-llowed. In vie'*, of disposal of the said Civil^{Miscellaneous} Appeal, this Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶33

Recording the said submissions, the^{V/rit petition} 1S

¶34

dismissed. No costs

¶35

S t- &' NIVASA REDDY lsrh NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE GOPY/i

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to^{SRI. P. RATMA SHARANA SHARMA'Ad} e [OPUC] the State of

¶40

2 Two QCs.to GP^{FOR SOCIAL WELFARE,High Cou rt for} Telangana at^HYderabad [OUT]

¶41

Two CCs to^{GPFOR REVENUEHigh Court for the.}tate of Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶42

One CC to SRl.^D THARUN KUIUAR,^Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies BM GJP

3^,{*

<br>

Br.,

i'|] i"*n-r.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310712025

ORDER

WP.No.28218 of 2024

c1r. r riE li izr i(r
r'(
aoo(: rJ
2 6 l'0u 2sfr
c)
\ \ DeIioAtCc ,-*
,

¶53

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITIHOUT COSTS

¶54

! \

¶55

t
'.

¶56

ft^c.,
i'r-\ t1 b.{

Bandi Veera Raghavulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bandi Veera Raghavulu 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

Kandimalla Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Aveena Gudapati Vs The State of Telangana

Md.Zaheeruddin Siddiqui @ Zaheeruddin Siddiqui Vs The State of Telangana

Kalla Shasidhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.Guntupally Sumanth Vs The State of Telangana

. Dilpreet Tubes Pvt. Limited Vs State of Telangana