G. Ramulu, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary

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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in Sy No.265iAA Ac.0.25^gts and 266lAA2 4c.0.15 gts (left over 5 plots) of Makthal Revenue Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District including stopping the construction of the compound wall at the instance of the 4th respondent without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 19,21 and 300A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the petitioner's land in question without following due process of law.

¶18

l.A.NO:1 OF 2015 (WPMP.NO:4210 OF 201s)

¶19

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 1 to 3 not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from the lands in Sy No. 265lAA Ac.0.25 gts & 266/AA2 Ac.O.'15 gts (an extent land of left over 5 plots) of Makthal Revenue Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.S.RUDRESWAR RAO

¶21

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

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI D.L.PANDU

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.3164 of 2O15

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is liled seeking the following prayer:

¶28

o...declaing the action of the respondents in trying to drspossess the petitioner from tle lands in Sg.No.265/AA, Ac.O-25 gts., and 266/AA2 Ac.O-15 Sts.,^{(lefi ouer 5 plots) of MakthalReuenue Villageand} Manda| Mahaboobnagar District (subject land) including stopping th.e construction of the compound wall at tle instance of tle 4th respondent u.titlnut follou.ting^{due proc-ess of lau is illegalarbitraryand} uiolation of pinciples of natural^justice and uiolatiort of Article 74, 79, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct ttte respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere uith the petittoners land in question uithout folloutng^{due process of lau..."}

¶29

None appeared for the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of the subject land^purchased from tlee original owner E.Yashodamma through registered sale deed No.1488/L987 dated 24.08.1987 on payment of sale

¶31

2

¶32

consideration and since then, petitioner was in enjo;rment of the property without any interference from the third parties. It is submitted that in the year 1992, petitroner has converted the said lands into 17 house plots a,.d 12 plots were sold out and remaining 5 are in petitioner's possession. petitioner has started construction of compound wall on the left over plots. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were obstructing the petitioner from construction of the compound wall at the instance of respondent No.4. It is further submitted that without aly notice, the authorities are now taking action against the petitioner witrrout issuing any notice a,d threatened the petitioner to stop the construction of compound wall and vacate from the saicl land within three days. euestioning the same, the present writ petition is frled.

¶33

A counter aflidavit has been fited by respondent No.3 and would submit that respondent No.4 did not approach respondent Nos.l to 3 to interfere and stop the construction of compound wall constructed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is having certain disputes with respondent No.4, to resolve the said disputes, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and respondent Nos.l to 3 have

¶34

3

¶35

nothing to do with tllre inter se disputes ald would pray to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶36

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that there are certain disputes between petitioner and respondent No.4. The petitioner, instead of approaching Civil Court to resolve ttre said disputes, has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The said disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. As such the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

With the above observations, writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶39

closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

D/. B. REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To 1 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the te of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 2 9n" 99^{to SRI M.S.RUDRESWARRAO,} Advocate UC] 43 9n" Two CD 99 Copies^{to SRt D.L.pANDU, Advocate} tOpUCj--'SA GJP N/

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED:0210412025

¶43

, 't-
.<br><br>2 5 siP 205
'ir.

¶44

ORDER

¶45

WP.No.3164 of 2015

¶46

DISMISSING THE W.P