Pinni Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspend the operation of orders^{datedOOl12t2O25in file No. E4l1 954t2025and}

¶24

-:^j-; -i:1 -r' : -r

¶25

the communication dated 1011212025 in file No. E4l195412025^{pendingdisposalof} Appeal

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D. Y. L. N. CHARYULU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY^KATRAM, GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P. KRISHNA REDDY, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶29

Counsel for the, Respondent No.5: SRI P. VINAY KUMAR REDDY

¶30

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶31

.,\ t;

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶33

AT HYDERABAD

¶34

'tHE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SIII APARESH KUMAR SINGTI

¶35

AND

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRT CE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶37

WRIT APPEAL No.146 of 2026

¶38

Dated: 09.A2.2026

¶39

Between:

¶40

Pinni Srinivas and 2 others.

¶41

...Appellants

¶42

and

¶43

The State of Telangana, I{ep. by its Principal Secretary, llevenue [)epartment, Seoretariat, [{yderabad,

and 4 others.

...Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri D.Y.N.L.N.Charyulu appears for the

¶48

appellants

¶49

Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Govemment Pleader for

¶50

Revenue, appears for respondents No.l to 3.

\ \

2

I I I I iI rl ii l

Learned counsel Sri Palreddy Vinay Kumar Reddy appears for

¶55

rcspondent No.5

¶56

fhe appellants approached thc learned writ court by frling

¶57

W.P.No.4C082 of 2025 rvith the follorving praver:

¶58

"For the reasons stated in the accomparrl,ing affidavit. petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Couft nray be pleased to issue writ, or writs, order or orcers, direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MAN)AMUS declaring the orclcrs of tlre 2"d Respondent in proceedings No.Ez / I 95412025 dated 06-12-2025 consequential a letter to the Respcndents 3 and 4 serrt by thc l{espoudent No.2 through letter No.E:/195412025 dated l0-12-2025 instructirrg the Respondent No.2 to keep .he land to an cxtent ol'Ac.[-0-l;. Guntas in Sy.No.7i8 in which larrd t,elongins to Petitionel No. I to an c\tent of .,\c.0-07 Cuntas arrd the land bclorrgirrg to Petitioners 2 atrci ..1 Lo an extcrrt o{'Ac.0-0(r% Guntas each :;ituated at Pillalarnarri Village and also directing Respondent No.3 to hold all constructiorrs in rcspect ol- the above said land u,ithout giving an ol)portunity by making Petitioners party is illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the orders in proceedings No.E4l195412025 dated 06-12-2025 and consequential letter No. Il4l I 954 12025 dated I 0- 12-2025 in re:;pect ol petitiorrer No. I land to alt extent of Ac.0-07 Guntas in Sy.No.738/A A2ll12 and the land belonging to Petitioner 2 to an extent of Ac.0-06'/z Guntas in 51.No.738iAA2ll12 and the land belonging to Petiticrrcr 3 to an extent of Ac.0-061/. Guntas in Sy.No.738lAA2ll12 situated at Pillalamarri Village and pass strch other order or orders as this Hon'ole Court nray deem fit and proper under circumstances of this case.''

¶59

The writ petition has been disposed of on 20.01.2026 after hearing the appellant, State and respondent No.5 in the following

¶60

manner:

¶61

"8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent authrtrities to grant an opportunity of hearing tothe petitioners and allthe concerned parties by putting them on notice and after conducting due enquiry pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and

3

:. -- .-.-.

?-

thereafter communicate copy of the said order to the^{petitioners.The} parties to the writ petition shall maintain status quo in all respects tillthe respondent authority pass final orders. There shall be no orders as^to costs."

¶66

Being aggrieved, the appellants have^prefbrred this^{appeal, inter} alia, stating that the appellants have been affected by^{the order} impugned in the writ petition dated 06.12.2025^{passedwithout notice to} them. Because of the status quo order now being^{granted by the learned} *,rit court, the ongoing cclnstructions by the appellants have^been aflected.

¶67

Learned counsel for the appellants subrnits that there is^an injunction order in tavour of the appellants in O.S.No.l33 of^{2025 vis-tr-} vis third parties. Respondent No.5 is an illegal claimant as^possessorof the land. Therefore, the direction passed by the learned^writ court^to rnaintain status quo while directing the official respondents to^pass appropriate orders after notice and hearing the parties is, in^f-act, affecting the vested rights of the appellants.

¶68

Learned counsel lor respondent No.5 submits that^resportdent No.5 was not made a party before the learned trial court^wherean interim injunction has been obtained. It is further submitted that^the husband of respondent No.5 was the one who had applied online in

/ (

4

: t f$TII II

1)

Dharani portal. The dispute herein is in relation to the order dated 06.12.2025 whereby the District Collector, Suryapet, has directed rhat no transactions or rnutaLions shall be cntertained in respect ol'the subject land until further orders.^-['hc order of the lcarned r.vrit court does not determine the rights of the parties. It has relegatcd the issue to rhe District Cr>llector, who is the competent authority. Therefore, for the tirne being, the interests of both the partics arc not adversell, affected.

¶74

Lee.rned Covernment Pleadcr lor Revcnue appearing tbr respondents No.l to 3 submits that the impugned directions are innocuous in nature without af'fectin-e the right or intercst of either the appellants or respondent No.5. Therefore, the appellants. if aggrieved by the or<[er passed by the District Collcctor purslrant to the irnpugned direction rf the learned rvrit court, rr,ill have thc rcmedy in appropriate proceedings. No case for interlbrence is required at this stage.

¶75

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into note the lelevant materials placed on record, we are of the view that in the naturt: of the dispute raised herein, the learned writ court has rightly refrained from entering into the merits of the case of the parties while relegating the matter to the District Collector, Suryapet, to take a decision on the rival pleas after due notice to both the parties within a

¶76

5

¶77

period of 90 days. Till then status quo has been directed to be maintained in all respects. Since by the impugned direction no^rights of either ol'the parties arc being af lected and the rival^parties are^{at liberty} to approach the appropriate fbnrm/court if aggrieved by^{the order of the} District Collector, w'g do not finci any reason to interfere^{in the matterat}

¶78

this stage.

¶79

9.^'The instant appeal is accordingly disrnissecl. There shall^{be no} order as to costs

¶80

Miscellaneous appli<;ations pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶81

V.S.PRASAD REGISTRAR

¶82

//TRUE COPYII

¶83

OFFICER