Ramanaji Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Ramanaji Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; writ petition closed as the petitioner's grievance stands redressed, with liberty to file a separate petition challenging respondent No.4's action in not permitting her to discharge her duties, and no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.4 in interfering into the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner, not allowing her to discharge her duties, and threatening to hand over the subject agricultural land to respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Court's answer

Since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed on the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4, the writ petition is closed.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the nature of the relief sought, notice to respondent No.5 stands dispensed with.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a separate petition challenging the action of respondent No.4 in not permitting her to discharge her duties.ratio¶33
There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶34
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.2990 of 2025, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (K. Lakshman, J.), 04-02-2025: Filed under Article 226 by Ramanaji Jyothi, a kamati working with the Municipality, Miryalguda (respondent No.4), alleging that respondent No.4 interfered with her peaceful life and liberty, prevented her from discharging her duties, and threatened to hand over agricultural land of her son admeasuring Ac.1-25 gts in Sy.No.129113 at Yadgarpally Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District to respondent No.5. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 never interfered in the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and that the petitioner continues to work as kamati. Holding that the petitioner's grievance stood redressed, the court closed the writ petition, granted liberty to file a separate petition challenging respondent No.4's action in not permitting her to discharge her duties, directed that there be no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous applications; notice to respondent No.5 was dispensed with.

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

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

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 2990 OF 2025

Between:

Ramanaji Jyothi, Sio. Late Venkataiah, Aged about 41. years, Occ Kamati (Municipality Dept.), R/o. Yadgarpally Viltage, Miryalguda Mandat, Nalgonda District.

...PET|T|ONER

AND

The State o.f Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal ' Administration and Urban Development Department (MAUD), Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Commissioner, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department (MAUD), Telangana, Hyderabad.

The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District,

The Municipality, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Commissioner

lragadhindla Srinu, S/o. Somulu, Aged about 45 Yebrs,-Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Yadgarpally Village, Miryalguda l\ulandal, Nalgonda ,,.,r,.,....*=TTONDENTS

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 declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in interfering into the peaceful life and liberty of the Petitioner also not allowing to discharge the duties of the Petitioner and threatening to handover the agriculture land of the son of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.25 Gts - Survey No..l29173, which is situated.at Yadgarpally Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District to the Respondent No.5 and creating the panic situation by the influence of the Respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner to discharge her duties and not to interfere into peaceful life and liberty of the Petitioner and not to threaten to handover the agriculture land of the son of the

etitioner^{to an extent of Ac'1'25 Gts in SurveyNo '129173'which is situatedal} Miryalguda^{Mandal, Nalgonda District to the Respondent} YadgarPallY^Village' No.5.

IAN O:1OF 2025

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit fired^{in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct} the Respondent^{No.4 to allowthe Petitioner to discharge her duties and not to} interfere into^{peaceful life and liberty of the Petitionerand not to threaten to} handover the agricultunl^{land of the son of the Petitionerto an extent of Ac'1 '25} GtsinSurveyNo.l2glz3,whichissituatedatYadgarpallvVillage,Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda^{District to the Respondent No.5 District pending disposalof the} Writ Petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR} ;;;;i i.' iii" h"tptndent^{Nos'1 & 2: GP !9R1lt9PLADMN & URBAN DEV} ;;il;ii;; il;; H;';'ndent^{No'3: GP FoRR-EvENUE} ;;;;;i ;;; il;; ;i;;;.ndent^{No'4: sRr P'KRTSHNAREDDY' sc FoRMPcL} Counsel for the ResPondent^{No'5: -}

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

t t

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

WRIT PETITTON^{No.2990of2025}

ORDER:

Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar,^{learned counsel for the petitioner} and Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Standing^{Counsel appearing for} respondent No.4.

2- In view of the nature of relief^{soughtfor in this Writ Petition'} notice to respondent No.5 stands dispensed^with'

Petitioner herein is claiming^{that sheis the absolute ownerand} possessor of Iand admeasuring Ac.l-25^{gts', in Sy'No'129113'situated} at Yadgarpally Village, Miryalguda^{Mandal, Nalgonda District'} Petitioner is working at respondent^{No'4-municipalityas kamati'} 'I-here are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No'5 with regard to the subject property. Respondent^{No'4is trying to handover} the same to respondent No.5 illegatly.^{Therefore' challenging the said} action of respondent No.4, the petitioner^{fited the present writ petition'}

Whereas, Sri P. Krishna^{Reddy, learned StandingCounsel} appearing for respondent No.4, on^{instructions'would submitthat} respondent No.4 never interfered^{with the disputesbetween the}

2

petitioner and rospondent No.5 with regard to the subject property. He would fur1her submit that at present, the petitioner is u,orking at

respondent No..4-municipality as kamati

In the ligtrt of the aforesaid submissions, since the gricvance of the petitioner is' redressed, this Writ Petition is closed. I{owever, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file separate petition challenging the action of respondent No.4 in not permitting her to discharge her

duties. There sheLll be no order as to costs.

As a sequei thereto, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed

SD/^. T.^TIRUMALADEVI ASSI T T REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

cTION OFFICER

" I ?,13 33Jif5i?yfhtsFii.S^ffiiftt'il3iilbt3'i'tc.|lh court^{ror the State} ' '-i"i;s;ne,?l-Iyqi{flKf

JPJJ+ sc^{FoR MpcL ropucr} , _- ^,

? ?*S S3JifEi?[tA^{X;V;*U=,igh co,,rroi'inE siit" or teransana, at} HYderabad. [OtJ'1-]

Two CD^CoPies

PSK GJP 6

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410212025

ORDER

WP.No.2990^{of 2025}

(l\E .ST4 ?
o
a: a
ilrr irl frd ififfi
az
-::, .5
,:/

CLOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

cr*'9
<br>

---:&-**-.-