Dismissed

Sri. Gaddikoppula Upender Reddy, Nalgonda Dist v. Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 4 Others

Telangana HC6 Aug 2025WP/46090/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition regarding the illegal sealing of a borewell. However, the petitioner did not appear at the hearing. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and incidental petition for non-prosecution without costs.

What did the court decide?

The petition for dismissal of Writ Petition No.46090 of 2016 and I.A. No.1 of 2016 was granted.

Sri. Gaddikoppula Upender Reddy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁵⁵ ]

¶3

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

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN^KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:46090 OF 2016

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri Gaddikoppula Upender Reddy, S/o.^{Gaddikoppula RaT Reddy,} Kothagudem Village, Mothe ltrlandal, Nalgonda^{District, TelanganaState}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary,^{RevenueDistrict,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda^District.,- The Tahsildar, Revenue Department, Kothagudem^{lVlajira [/amellagudem} Village, N/othe ltrlandal, Nalgonda District.

¶15

Smt. Gaddikoppula Ralitha, W/o. G. Ram Reddy,^{R:/o.Gaddikoppula Village,} l/othe lvlandal, Nalgonda District.

¶16

Sri. Gaddikoppula Ram Reddy,^{S/o. Gaddikoppula Ram Reddy, Resident of} N,4othe [,4andal, Nalgonda District.

¶17

..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue writ, order or direction more^{particularly one in the natureof writ} Of tvlandamus tc declaring^{the action of the respondent No. 3 in sealingand} disconnecting the borewell^{in petitioner'sland admeasuringAc. 1.19 cents in Sy} No. 141 situated in Kothagudern^{Majira MamillagudemVillage, tVothe Mandal,} Nalgonda District as illegal, arbitrary and^{violation of Article 14 and 21 of} Constitution of lndia as well as^violation of^{provisions of WaltaAct, 2002 and} consequently direct the respondent^No. 3^{to removethe sealof Borewell and give} connection to borewell in^petitioners land admeasuring^{Ac. 1.19 centsin Sy No.}

¶19

@ry

¶20

141 situated ln Kothagudem Majira [t4amillagudem \r'i age, Mothe Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP . NO: 56761 OF 2016)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court^-nrry be pleased to direct the respondent 3 to remove the seal of Borewell and give cc,nnection to borewell in petitioner's land admeasuring Ac. 1.19 cents in Sy No. 14'1 situated in Kothagudem tViajira tt4amillagudem Village, l\ilothe lr,4anr: al, Nalgonda District pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. V. SUNEEL KUMAR (N(rT pRESENT)

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5:-----

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SIIRAVAN KUMAR

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.46O9O of 2O16

¶30

ORDER

¶31

On 05.08.2025, when the matter was taken up for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was listed to today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today also, when the matter is taken up there was no representation on behalf of the petiLioner either physically or in virtual mode. Hence, there is no other option to this Court except to dismiss the Writ Petition for non-prosecution.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Perition is dismissed for

¶33

non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶35

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REGISTRAR 6-

¶36

//TRUE COPY/i SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To, 1. One CC to Sri^{K. V. SuneelKumar, Advocate[OPUC]} - i. il; CCrio^{-Cp for Revenue, High Courtfor the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶38

Two CD CoPies TJ GJ o

fi I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610812025

ORDER

WP.No.46090 of 2016

.
(
2 I Si, 2[?5
;o.

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOFI NON. PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS

Sri. Gaddikoppula Upender Reddy, Nalgonda Dist v. Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gaddikoppula Upender Reddy, Nalgonda Dist v. Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 4 Others

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

Tanneeru Venkateswarlu S/o Ramaiah Vs The National Highways Authority of India

Telangana State Chess Association Vs The State of Telangana

R. Projyoth Kumar Vs The Union of India

M. Laxamma Vs The District Collector

Ambi Sambaraju, Hanumakonda, Warangal. Vs the Tahsildar, Warangal Dist., and Anr.

Mohd. Shafi Qureshi and 6 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., M.A. and U.D. Dept. and 5 Ors.