Disposed

Pragnyapuram Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jun 2025WP/42513/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired landholder challenged respondents' threatened dispossession of his agricultural land at Ramannagudem, Suryapet. With no counter filed in seven years and respondents agreeing to follow lawful procedure, the court directed that possession not be disturbed without due process.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession of the subject property without following due process of law; no costs.

Pragnyapuram Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰²¹

¶2

HrGH couRr^,?+ I+ED8[tIioF TELANGANA (SPeciat Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

MONDAY ,THE^{SIXTEENTHDAY OF JUNE} ''' rwo iiousAND AND TWENTY FlvE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK. SARATH}

¶6

wRlT PETITI^{ONNO:,425'13 OF2017}

¶7

Between:-"--';Sgffi

¶8

',i,08^:,i,,rilti,,if^{3B:^*fi '.l3f:ryll;g_",ifr '1,'i}qrlr#i} 'P;k;;A;i,' ;sed' 65'vears' occ Retired. tn b'n'r""itl" " ; r ; i t,^s "vai' "t' s u rya^{petDi stri ct}

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of^{Telangana, rep' by its Principal Secretary' Revenue Department} Secretariat,^HYderabad'

¶12

The District^{Collector, Suryapet, District' SLryapet}

¶13

¶14

The Revenue^{Divisional Officer, Suryapet' Suryapet District'}

¶15

¶16

The Tahsildar'^{Suryapet Mandal, SuryapetDistrict'}

¶17

4 5 Telangana^{State Wakf Board, Rep'by its Chief Executive Officer' Nampally'} Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndiapraying that 'in} the circumstances^{statedin tn"""ttiO"'iitr"d therewith' the HighCourt maybe pleased} to issue^{an appropriateW'it, O'O"tor Direction'more particula'rly 9ne i1jle-lf't-ule} of Writ of^{Mandamus,to ou"fui" if'" action of the respondent No 4 and 5 heretntn} threatening^{to dispossess t1t" p"tiiiJ"li ii"l} l':^{lawfuloossession in respect of the} land admeasuring^{Ac' o'zi"itt} ""0^{Ac' 0'23 Gts" in Sv'No 2iAl and2lA2l2'} situated at^{Ramannagud";;i;g;, suryapetMandal, suryapetDistrict (erstwhile} Nalgonda^{District), wlthout'any?";|.-ti''ghf} .authority^{or jurisdiction' as being} illegal, arbitrary,^{unjust rnolii6t'ti"of Articl6 21 and 30b-Aof the Constitutronof} lndia and consequently^{oil"iih" *tpondentNo' 4 and 5 hereinnot to take any} ;;;;;;"p. wiihoutioilowing^{the due process of Law}

¶20

t.A. NO: 10F^{2017(wPMP.NO:527 o40F 20171}

¶21

-"=-llr/-f

¶22

Petition under Secti il:s;^{j jJlil[i+::f} tiii,.":ffi^{J:1n:"iffi ,;:Ji","I;HXil:..:::,::[r} wirtne'peal"ei,,rl",,-"1.,1,iT"Ji,"iil",li?T:H,.#Iflt$:Til;:m; ffiH:'"',!i?l: |,,fl'r!"r::g t"^{o.'r: di; : , .rl fil} ,,o,, ana ziaz2situaieJ at District), plndins a;;pi",r""llvffi,.,y;:ff1":,X"fJ?i,"r,,"1i:ii:yi[ ,.i;ffi;."

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶24

COUNSCI fOr thE RCSPONdENT NO.5: SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN SC FOR TGSWB The Cou( made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTTCE K'SARATH} WRTT PETITI^{ON No. 425L3 of 20L7}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heardlearnedcounselappearingforthepetitioner and learned^{Assistant Government Pleader.forRevenueand} SriFarhanAzamKhan,learnedStandingCounselforthe Telangana^{StateWakf Board appearingfor the respondents} and^{perused' the entire material on record'}

¶28

Learned^{Counsel for the petitionersubmits that this} writ petition^{is hled by the petitionerquestioningthe action} of the resPondent^{Nos'4and 5 herein in threateningto} lawful Possessionⁱⁿ the petitioner^{from his} dispossess Ac.O-23^{guntas and} the land^admeasuring respect^of Ac.O-23^{guntas in SY'No'2/A1} and 2lA212 respectivelY, Village,^{SuryaPet Maldal,} situated at^Ramannagudem Suryapet^{District(erstwhileNalgonda District)'}

¶29

karned^{Counsel for the petitionerfurther submits} that whiie^{admitting,this Court grantedinterim order on} 20.12.2017^{directing the respondentsnot to dispossess or}

! ri

i l l i ,

sr,J W.P.No.42S1O of 201Z

¶35

interfere with the possession of the petitioner in the subject property. In spite of lapse of more than 7Yz years, the respondents did not choose to file any counter in this matter for denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and requested to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, without following due process of law.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government pieader for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Wakf Board submit that the respondents will follow the procedure contemplated under law before interfering with the possession of the petitioner in the subject property ald pass appropriate orders.

¶37

In view of the submissions made by both sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in the subject propert5r, without following due process of 1aw. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

sr,J W.P.No.42573^{o! 2077}

¶39

6 As a^{sequel, the miscellareouspetitions pending' if}

¶40

anY,^{shall stand closed'}

¶41

//TRUE^COPY//

¶42

SD/.S.^{MALLIKARJUNARAO} SSIST^{ANT REGISTRAR}

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

ariat,^HYderabad'

The^{Principal Secretary' Revenue DepartmentS}

¶47

The^{DistrictCollector' Suryapet' District' Suryapet}

¶48

The^{Revenue Divisional Officer' Suryapet' Suryapet District'}

¶49

The^{Tahsildar, Suryapet Mandal' Suryapet District'}

¶50

5.TheChiefExecutiveofficer,TelanganaStateWakfBoard,Nampally' HYderabad.

¶51

One^{CC to SRI' PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Advocate IOPUCI}

¶52

One^{CC to SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN SC FOR TGSWB IOPUCI}

¶53

B.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana touTl

¶54

Two^{CD CoPies} KKS TKS .r/

1 I

HIGH COURT

DATED:16 t}6t2}2s

'BTHE.SI
a L-' ,1 ]^c
f.<br>o 11 il6m
ao
,.,
-//..1
* Dr"

¶59

ORDER

¶60

WP.No.42513 of 2O1T

¶61

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

/1 /.,-3 ,/z,/.(t

Pragnyapuram Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragnyapuram Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kenche, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Mothe Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana

Teli Daniel Padma Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.Sridevi, Vs the State of Telangana

M.Sudheer Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Rapaka Janardhan Reddy, S/o Late Govind Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary