Dismissed

Gunisetty Rajasekahram v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Telangana HC15 Jul 2025WP/9086/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus restraining interference with their possession of small plots in Shayampet Jagir village pending regularization applications under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.02.2002. The court found no proof that the regularization applications were filed, held the interim status quo order was obtained by misrepresentation, and dismissed the writ petition with liberty to pursue l

What the court decided

AI extract

Gunisetty Rajasekahram Vs The Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

-'1

i i I

[³¹⁶⁸¹

I i

ii 1l I

i d it il iJ ir

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT fIYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdktion)

¶8

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAYOF JULY --} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^{FIVE ..}

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JI,JSTICE^K.LAKSHMAN

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO: 90860F²⁰⁰⁸ "'

¶12

Betwee	n:
+	Curlisatt<sup>l{airtsekaltrartt- S/o^{(runiscttrt)urcaiah'} ,\op7{).uI..^{()eellrtsitrcss,} ni. :^{l-,,1.\ e ll.rtttllrtzar'WarangalDisrict'}
	Thota^{Virnalrrl)cr'i.\ir'oNarasaiahLingam'} O,"i,i,l,t",,,rr^{'ecdhi. Agc:50years' Occ:Housewift'} Waranqitl
	Notrrrtlrt^{\cttkltt'.''lrrrlttltt'Sio'Ranganayakulu'} Ri,,S^{tt'(,1).!e: iI \rals'C)cc:Business'} J)i!tnit\tltl^{\ttect.\.rrlrrltlal}
4	Ilcnugrtirll'-t^{l'Ltslrparalltt'W/ol-ateFlarinath'} ( -a,,r..,r..()tellt'usclvilc, (iirrtrali1,tr.\.ttltttcltl'
)	l{cnrLrrttttl.t^\rrtrprrl"ll'rlittgani'^S/oBadraiah' ^-*...1, t..,,'^rlee^{llusincss,R-/oBankColony'}
6	\trrLtL.rttlt
7	Krnrrrcllt^{\r1.rr.r\ t'I(niagoapal Rao'} 1o.,^{ilrr'tir'.( )1,-}
I	(iolLuttl-r\t1.tr.rI.t'rtti^{\iitl'Yadagiri'} .\qc^{i()\J.rr.()rrllottservil'c'} I^tll-rriL^{t,rlottr.\:tt.tttqal}
I	\trrtidt\ltrrr.r,.l.r.^{\ t'\atlllshi"udu'} '. .l \r'.rr-.(t.( ll'rll:(\ili- RfoRtr &J,^r,r--"{J'

I I

l0 Koruvelli Shar-adha,^{W/o.Shankaraiah,} Age: 5l^years, Occ:^{Ilouservif-e,} R/o. Garimellavari^{Veedhi,Warangal.}

¶17

ll Aitha Ram Sateesh, S/o.^{A.Chandramouli,} Age: 33^years, Occ:^Ilrrsiness, fuo. Challagarige, chityala^{Mandal, Warangal}

¶18

1. Padithala Sunitha,^{W/o. VenkatRao.} Age: 28^years, Occ:^Houservile, R/o. Ookal, Geesugondal.^Walangal-

¶19

l3 Alladi Srinivasulu,^{S/o.Ve nkateshu'antltt.} Age: 52^years, Occ:^Busittess, R/o. Ganesh ColonY,^Warnagal

¶20

l4 Bollam Jyothsna,^{W./o.Srinivasulu,} Age: 29^years, Occ:^{Ilouseu ile-} R/o. Ramannapet.^\iarangal

¶21

I5 MAduri Rajeshwari ,^{W /o-Basavalingatl.} Age: 70^years, Occ:^{Ilouservil'e,} PJo. Old Beet Bazar .^Warangal.

¶22

r6 Konduri Raj Kunrar,^{S/o. Mankaiahlin-lr.rnr.} Age: 58 years, Occ:^[]usincss. R/o. JPN Road,^Warangal

¶23

t7 Bandaru Bapu Rao,^{S/o Kotaiah.} Age: 67 years. Occ:^lltrsincss. fuo. Srinivas Colony.^Warangal.

¶24

l8 Vangeti Niraja, W/tr Nlrrasirnha^Ratr Age: 55 years, Occ:^{I lrltrserri} li R-/o. Govindaraopet.^\';trattval.

¶25

l9 Domakuntla Krishna^{KLrrlrar.S;oKan.rkrrialr} Age: 50^years, Occ^llusiness. R/o. D.S.Templc^{St rect. Warattqrtl.}

¶26

20 Lenkalapally Jagan^{Nlt,ltlrrCLrpt:t.} S/o. Narsaiah- Auc-.^{5 j} -rcals-^{()cc: I'rt I ttrP]t'ree} R/o. Lakshmi Bazartt.^{I lrtrrtttakotrcla}

¶27

Kalva Swarajyanr.^{\,t,. Ilhrskar llat'-}

¶28

	-ll^-
?	CunisettySoundarrverrn.\/,ir.11r,r1a",,, Rajasckharam, Age:63 years,Occ:llouscrviti- R/o.l2-3{8,YcllrrnBazaar- Walangal.
23.	DevaJagadeeshrvar.Slo.Late Chakrapani, Age:50 years,C)cc:Lmployee. R/o.Warangal-
74	Gunda Vishrveshu,ara Rao-S,/crVeerabadraiah, Age:57years,Occ:Enrplo_r,ce, R-/o.Vasavi Colonl -Waranual
25	KukkadapuShakr.ntla-\ro. Gnanendhar[lao, Age:40 years,Oce:Houscrrifl. R./o.JPNRoad. \;lranual.
26*r	SomaRarnaiah.S,'o.SonraNarrvana, Age:60 years.C)cc:[]Lrsinr'ss- R/o.8-3-I38.Konduli\jrriStr.'.-t. Warangal.
27	AddagudiSamba\lrrrrlrr.S'o. [.axrraiah, Age:65years,Oec:llLrsincss. R-/o.PapaiahStrcct.\ur:rrrqal.
2V	Soma Sarnbaiah.SoSorrur\lua\ana. Age:65 years.OccBrrslress. R/o.ll/B.S.[(.Nular. \ar:utqul.
29	PabathiKrishna^j\ltrrrlrr.SrrSlrckaraiiih. Age:55years.Ocellrr'rrrc... R/o. GalimellarruiStrcet.\arrrru;rl.
30.	MahankaliDhrnlI Age:50vcars.f{r, lrkrlrurr\oNlgeshrvaraRao, l{.rrrlrrn.rprt. \'lranqal.
31.	ThotaSonraI-iruirnr.\tr.tr.r.uillt- Age:70 r,ears-^I) :t 1 r.IiI1
32. '	VenrulaLarntitI.tt.t,r.rtlr.5rr_iLuttllttn. Agc:55ycars.Oclllr'irie'. Cho*rasra-\iaxrrr,,,r^I
3r.	Vemula Narasirrlt.r li.rt,.\Lr,rkrrntattr..\le:50^year-s, Occ:Busines-I(r,.⁽lr,,rrt.t.t.t.\rtnngal
34.	YadaVl,kunrlrtt.!r\iu.r.rnr.^.\se6l^\etrs,

¶29

t I F I I I I I I t i i : i

¶30

Akinepalli^{Jamuna,W/o. Sudhakar, Age: 50 years, Shi ranagar,Warangal.}

¶31

...PETITIONERS

¶32

AND

¶33

The Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by^{its, Princrzrl Secretary,Revenue} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶34

The District Collector, Warangal.

¶35

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal.

¶36

The Tahsildar, Hanmakonda.

¶37

The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban^{[.,rr d Ceiling, Warangal.}

¶38

,..RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{ln,; i} I^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, th:^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more^particula"r one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned action of the^{'3spondents seeking to} interfere with our peaceful^possession and enjoyment of th: small extents^{of plots} varying from 300 to 360 Sq.yards belongs to the^{petitir'n :rs} in^Sy.No.159/A, 159/8, 159/C, 159/D and 161/B, 158/A situated at Shi'yirmpet^{jagir (Village),} Hanmakonda Mandal, Warangal District in order to allot :'re^lands to 3rd^parties without following due process of law and pending our rer iriarization applications before the respondents as illegal, void abinitio and violativr^{of articles,14,21 and} 300-4 and consequently direct the respondents not^(interfere with^our possession of plots in the interest of^justice and equity.

¶40

l.A. No: 2 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 12031 OF 2008)

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^; r'lumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court l^a'7 be^pleased to direct the respondents not to disturb the^{peaceful possessior} and enJoyment of the petitioners in respect of land situated in Sy.No.^.159/A, 59/B 159/C, 159/D & 161/8, 158/A situated at Shayampet jagir (Villagel, l-lanmakonda Mandal, Warangal District pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PARICHAYA REDDY F(.rR SRI ALLADI RAVINDER

¶43

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶44

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶45

i I ;

¶46

¶47

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAI(SHUAN

¶48

WRIT PETITION t{o.9o86 of 2(X)8

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

Heard Ms. Parichaya Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents.

¶51

It is the specilic contention of the petitioners that they are the owners of small extent of plots varying from 3OO to 36O Sq. yards in Surrrey Nos. 159/A, 159/8, IsglC, 159/D and l6tlB, lS/A, situated at Shayampet Jagir (Village), Hanamkonda Mandal, Wararga1 District. They have submitted applications seeking regularization of the said properties in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.O2.2fl02. During pendency of ttre said applications, respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property.

¶52

Respondents hled a counter affidavit contending trhat the sut$ect properties are excess vacant lands. They have also referred to various Writ Petitions. According to them, one Sri S. Gopinath fited application uide No.B2/1062/06 for regularization of his possession over tlrc land to an extent of 267.67 Sq. yards in Survey No. 155/8, cov€red by declaration urde proceedings No,B214693/06, and the other petiti.,orrers did not file any application for regularization of their possession over tlre excess vacant lands in terms of G.O.Ms.No.45S dated 29.OZ.2AO2. Tfrerefore, they are not entitled for any relief, much less, ttre relief sought in the present Writ Petition-

¶53

¶54

KI,. J wP 9086_2008

¶55

lrarned counsel for the petitioners, on j rs tructions, would submit that the petitioners are not in touch with t re m. Despite their best efforts, they could not contact the petitioners.^-l- terefore, they are not in a position to inform this Court about the pr.,rsent status of the case

¶56

In the light of the above said submission, as ri llrtly contended by the respondents, though ttre petitioners are claimi rlt that they have submitted applications for regularization under G.0. M".pyo.Oa5 dated 29.07.2OO2, they have not filed any proof of the san: :. Vrde order dated 24.04.2OO8 in W.P.M.P.No.l2O3t of 2OO8 in W.p.Nc,^(t )86 of 20O8, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh direct. rl Lhe pa_rties to maintain status quo existing as on that date. Thus, h:v have obtained the said order by way of misrepresentation.

¶57

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, th; Writ petirion is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petiti. ( rs lo t:rke sreps in accordance with law, if cause survives.

¶58

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, rnv. shall stand

¶59

closed

¶60

¶61

1 One CC to SRI ALLADI RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT, High Court for thi Slate of Tetangana -3 at Hyderabad. [OUTJ Two CD Copies

PSK. GJP ,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510712025

ORDER

WP.No.9086 of 2008

-<br>,-,.i<br>l
I 't I fltl 1025
.,','..,,,
'i:

¶71

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

2
/ r'5
,
/, 4/,(

Gunisetty Rajasekahram v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gunisetty Rajasekahram v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamre Shankaraiah Vs The State Of Telangana

K. Mukesh Kumar Vs Mr.Naveen Mittal

Khaja Issaquddin Vs Mr.v.P.Gautham

Village Development Committee Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. v. Srinivas Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Ramakrishna Kurva Vs The State of Telengana