Lingala Tirupathi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Lingala Tirupathi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: Respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders taking the petitioner's reply into consideration, expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law; parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on date until those orders are passed; petitioner at liberty to appeal to the appropriate forum if aggrieved by Respondent No.4's orders; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.4's interference with the petitioner's house at Sy.No.606, Bejjanki village/mandal (adm. Ac.0.035 gts, Siddipet District), effected without considering the petitioner's reply dated 16.10.2025 to Notice No.B/176/2023 dated 10.10.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. +2 more

Court's answer

Respondent No.4 is directed to pass appropriate orders on taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the submissions and record, the Court found it apparent that the reply filed by the petitioner (in response to Respondent No.4's notice) was under consideration before Respondent No.4.

Key takeaways

Until Respondent No.4 passes the said orders, the parties to the writ petition are directed to maintain the status quo obtaining as on date.ratio¶37
With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of without costs, the petitioner remaining at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum if aggrieved by the orders passed by Respondent No.4; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (single judge, Justice E.V. Venugopal), Writ Petition No.33231 of 2025, disposed of on 03-11-2025 without costs. Lingala Tirupathi (petitioner), invoking Article 226, sought a mandamus against Respondent No.4 (Mandal Revenue Officer, Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet District; respondents 1-3 being the State of Telangana, District Collector and RDO, Siddipet) for interfering with his house at Sy.No.606, Bejjanki village/mandal (adm. Ac.0.035 gts) without considering his reply dated 16.10.2025 to Notice No.B/176/2023 dated 10.10.2025, allegedly violative of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300A; counsel also relied on this Court's earlier order in W.P.No.27865 of 2023 (source renders the date as 'O6.IL.2023'/06.11.2023) directing non-interference without due process. An I.A. under Section 151 CPC sought interim restraint on respondents 2-4. The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reported the reply/explanation was still under examination before Respondent No.4 and urged dismissal for prematurity. Finding the reply under consideration, the Court did not pronounce on the alleged illegality; it disposed of the petition by directing Respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders on the reply as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law, directing parties to maintain status quo as on date till then, and preserving the petitioner's liberty to appeal if aggrieved by Respondent No.4's eventual orders. Pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed; no monetary quantum involved.

[^32ee l

!N THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY^{OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL}

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO: 33231 OF 2025}

Between:

Lingala Tirupathi, S/o Rajalingam^{Aged about: 46} fqars,^{O-cc-:-FarmerH'No'} t-t-0, Belanki Village,^{BejiankiMandat, Karimnagar Dist, 505528}

...PETITIONER

AND

't. The State of Telangana, Represented by Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariate at Hyderabad

The District Collector,^{SiddipetDistrict.}

Revenue Divisional^{Officer, SiddipetDistrict.}

+. tfre lrtanOal Revenue^{Officer, Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet District}

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article²²⁶ ol^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue an order, writ or^{direction more particularlyonein the nature of} writ of mandamus declaring^{the action of RespondentNo.4 in interferingwith} petitioners house situated at Sy.No.606^{Bejjanki villageimandal,admeasuring} Ac.0.035gts, Siddipet^{District withoutconsideringthe petitioners reply dated} 16.10.2025 to the Notice^{No.B,t176t2023dated 10.1o.2025issued by Respondent} No.4 authorities as^{illegal, arbitrary, violativeof principles of natural iustice, and} violative of fundamental^{rights underArticle14,21 , and 300A of the constitution of} lndia and consequently,^{direct the Respondent authoritiesnot to interferein the} Petitioners^property and to^{considerthe replydated16.10.2025with relevant}

documents

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;t mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nay be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 2 to 4 or any other persons ac ing on their behalf from interfering in the petitioner's house situated at I ;y. No.606 Bejjanki village/mandal, admeasuring Ac.0.035gts, Siddipet District per Jing disposal of the above Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PONNAM MAHESH BABU

Counsel for the Respondents: MR. L. RAVINDER, AGP FOFI TEVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOIIRABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

WRIT PETITION No.33231 of 2o.25

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

"... to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of E'rit of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in interfering with petitioners House situated at Sy.No.6O6 Bejjanki village /mandal, admeasuring Ac.O. 035 gts, Siddipet District without considering the petitioners reply dated 16.10.2025 to the Notice No.B/176/2023 dated 10.1O.2O25 issued by Respondent No.4 authorities as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 2L and, 3O0A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondent authorities not to interfere in the Petitioners property and to consider the reply d,ated, 16.10.2205 with relevant documents and to pass such other order or orders..."

Heard Mr.Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Ravinder, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his reply dated L6.IO.2O25 to the notice dated lO.lO.2O25 issued by the respondent No.4 stating that there was no illegal encroachment by the petitioner over the subject land; that this Court vide order dated O6.IL.2023 in W.P.No.27865 of

2

2023 dtrected the respondents not to interfere w:t r the house of the petitioner without following due process of lavr

He further states that despite reply subnitted by the petitioner and a direction from this Court, vic = order dated Ot6.ll.2023 in W.P.No.27865 of 2023, the respons:nt authorities are interfering with the petitioner's propert5r, wlL :h is abuse of process of law. Therefore, he seeks to pass approl) iate orders.

lcarned Assistant. Government Pleader ftr Revenue by filing the written instructions issued by responder t No.4 submits that the reply/explanation frled by the petiti rner is under examination; that after passing appropria t : orders by respondent No.4, if at aII the petitioner is aggrir,' ed thereby, he is at liberty to prefer an Appeal; that without wait ng for the said orders, the petitioner rushed to this Court at a I^-emature stage under misconception. Therefore, he seeks to d r miss this Writ Petition.

Having regard to the submissions of b<> h the learned counsel and on perusal of the material availablt: on record, it is apparent that the reply filed by the petjtLr ner is under consideration before respondent No.4. Thereft^-e, respondent Noi.4 is directed to pass appropriate orders, uJ on taking into

T

J

consideration^{the reply filed by the petitioner,as expeditiously as} possible, strictly in^{accordancewith law' Till passing of the} orders by^{respondent No.4, the parties to this Writ Petition are} directed to maintain^status Elo^{obtainingas on date'}

T.WiththeabovedirectionthisWritPetitionisdisposedof. No costs. Needless^{to mention the petitioner is at liberty to prefer} an Appeal^{before the appropriateforum, if at all he is aggrieved} by the orders^{passed by respondent No'4'}

Miscellaneous^{petitionspending,if any' shall stand closed'}

SO/. M.NAGAMANI ASS TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To, 1 . The Secretary,^{Revenue Department,State of Telangana' Secretariate at} Hvderabad

i6e District Collector,^{Siddipet Districl'}

Reuenre Divisional^{Officer, Siddipet District'} 4. iX.J r,til"o?'ri"r.ilue^{om"er' Beiianki Manda!Siddipet District} 5. d;'iCil'6nr.ForlxAut^{MnHEsuBABU'Advocat-etoPu.Q.} 6. i;; 6c.'L-cC^{Fon neVinue,Hish court for the stateof relansana'} IOUTI

Two CD CoPies

MMT TKS

?ntf..

tI

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311112025

ORDER

WP.No.3323'l ot 2025

-iE
U,i ,ir
i !<ra .$ i, t'1\
$
.)(Y lt'j
Lr- \ ,/
*
.r.. ) !e tH

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITON WITHOUT COSTS

9rq,.

lrA>{