Dismissed¶40

Smt. Panja Rajeswari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Nov 2025WP/35924/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC writ, WP No. 35924 of 2018, decided 20-11-2025 by Justice N. Tukaramji; petitioner Smt. Panla Rajeswari v. State of Telangana, Agency Divisional Officer and Sub Collector Bhadrachalam, Tahsildar, SHO, and unofficial respondents Mamilla Kanakamma and Mamilla Rambabu; challenge to order dated 24-9-2018 in Cr.Pc.No.1/2018 under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. restraining entry into Raghuram Residency (Lodge), Bhadrachalam; competence of 2nd respondent under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; dispute settled before Lok Adalat; dismissed as infructuous without costs; misc petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; there shall be no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ¶40

Smt. Panja Rajeswari Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; there shall be no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24-09-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide Cr.P.C.No.1/2018, restraining the petitioner from entering the subject property (Raghuram Residency (Lodge), Bhadrachalam) till final disposal of the proceedings, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. +2 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and recorded by the Court, the issues between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents having been amicably settled before the Lok Adalat, the contention raised in the petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶38

Key takeaways

Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.ratio¶40
There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶40
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 35924 of 2018 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; Special Original Jurisdiction; Justice N. Tukaramji; decided 20-11-2025): The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring the order dated 24-09-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent (Agency Divisional Officer and Sub Collector, Bhadrachalam) under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide Cr.P.C.No.1/2018 — restraining her from entering the subject property, Raghuram Residency (Lodge), Bhadrachalam, till final disposal of the proceedings — illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and further declaring that the 2nd respondent was not the competent authority to issue the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issues between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents had been amicably settled before the Lok Adalat, so the contention raised did not survive for adjudication. Recording that submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, ordered no costs, and closed miscellaneous petitions pending, if any.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3 59240F²⁰¹⁸

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Panla^Rajeswari, W/o Ralesh Age.55 years, Occ. Housewife^Rl/o Bhadrachalam^{Town,Bhadrad ri-Kothagudem Dist} Kalyanamandapam^Road,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

l.ThestateofTelangana,,Rep.byitsPrincipalsecretary(Home)Secretariat' Hyderabad.

¶13

The Agency^{Divisional Officer and Sub Collector,, Bhadrachalam Town} Bhadradri-Kothagudem^Dist.

¶14

The Tahsildar,, Bhadrachalam,^{Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist'}

¶15

The Station^{HouseOfficer,, Bhadrachalam,Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist'}

¶16

Smt.Mamilla^{Kanakamma,W/o late Veeraiah.Age 6l years,Occ Housewife} - niij'slipi.rg.r, atriJracndam Town Bhadradri-kothagudem Dist.

¶17

Mamilla^{Rambabu,S/o late VeeraiahAge.41 years, Occ BusinessRJo}

¶18

Sirpi"igrr, Bhadrachalam Town Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist'

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226^{of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue writ or direction^{preferablyWrit of Mandamus declaringthe order} d1.24-g-2}18 issued by^{the2nd respondent under 145 Cr'P'C'vide} Cr.Pc.No-1/2018^{restraining the petitioner from entering into the subiect property} i.e., Raghuram Resrdency^{(Lodge) Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist-'} till final drsposal^{of the proceedings,is illegal, arbitrary and withoutany iurisdiction} conferred under code^{of criminalProcedure, 1973 and consequently declare that} the 2nd respondent^{is not the competent authorityto issue the proceedings'}

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

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 Suspend the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.Pc.No.1/2018 dl. 24-9-2018 issued under Sec.145 of Cr_P.C, pending the disposal of writ.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: MS M. KATYAYANI REPRESENTING SRI M. M. M SRINIVASA RAO

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondents No 1 To 4: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents No 5 & 6: --

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

Ii :l

¶31

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶32

WRIT PETITI ON^No -35924^{0F 2018}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed^{underArticle 226 of Constitution of lndia}

¶35

seeking the following^relief:

¶36

lo rssue wit or direction^{preferablywit of Mandamus} dectaring the order dt.24-Og-2018^{issued by ldrespondent} under 145 Cr.P.C.^{videCr.P.C.No-1/2018restraining lhe} petitioner from entering into the subiect^{propefty i.e., Raghuram} Residency^(Lodge) Bhadrachalam,^{Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist',} titt final disposat of the^{proceedings,is illegal, arbitrary and} without any iurisdiction^{conferredunder Code of Criminal} Procedure. 1973 and^{consequentlydeclare that ld respondent is} not the competent authority^{to issuethe proceedings,and} pass....^"

¶37

Heard Ms.M.KatYaYani,^learned counsel representing Mr. M.M.M.Srinivasa^{Rao, learnedcounsel} for the^petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep,^{learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Home} appearing for respondent^{Nos.1 and 4.}

¶38

Learned counsel for^{the petitionerfairly submitsthat the issues} between the^{petitioner and unofficial respondents have amicably seftled} before the Lok Adalat.^{Thus, the contention raised in the petition does} not survive for adiudication.

¶39

¶40

Recording the submissions of the^{learnedcounsel for the} petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed

¶42

SdI AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASQ ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,