Dismissed

Samala Saidi Reddy and 4 others v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC7 Jan 2026WP/3838/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus restraining revenue authorities and TSSPDCL from disturbing possession of a plot in Narsingi Village. Respondents stated the substation was built on adjoining government land in Sy.No.134/4 and they were not interfering with petitioners' plot. The court found no cause of action and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Samala Saidi Reddy and 4 others Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY^{OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3838 OF²⁰²²

¶7

Between:

¶8

Samala Saidi Reddv. S/o. Showri Reddv, aqed^{about 75 years, Occ} Agriculture, R/o. Veiralasignaram village,^{-HuzurnagarMandal, Nalgonda} District.

¶9

Smt, Ch. Rama, W/o. Ch. Krrshna^{Reddy, aged about 46 years,Occ Govt} Service, R/o. Old Nereducharla^{village and Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶10

Aulu Krihsna Reddy, S/o. Koti^{Reddy, agedabout 52 years' Occ Agriculture,} R/o. Kothapally viliage, Macharla^{tviandal,Guntur District,Andhra Pradesh} State.

¶11

Smt. Singareddy Rajitha, Wo. Shyam^{Sundar Reddy Dontireddyaged. about} 47 vearsl Occ ilou6ewife, R/o.^{H. No. 2-267. Jerripthulagudem, Bethavolu} Posi, Cfritkur Mandal, Huzuranagar.^{Karakkayala Gudem, Nalgonda District'}

¶12

Dontireddy Appi Reddy, S/o.^{D. Satyan aayana Reddy, aged about 48 years,} occ Servi6e,'Fiio. Neai Post office,^{NeredulherlaMandal, Nalgonda District'}

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District} 3 The Thasildar, Gandipet Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District.} 4 The Narsingi Municipality, Rep.^{by its Commissioner, Narsingi,R.R District}

¶17

C The Superintendent, Telangana^{StateTSSPDCL (Operation) Cyber City} Circle, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

¶18

6 The Executive Engineer,^{TelanganaStateTSSPDCL (Operation) Cyber'City} Circle, Office at Mehdipatnam,^Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue an order^{or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of writ of}

¶21

Mandamusdeclaringtheactionoftherespondentsindistur:ingthepossesslon and enjoyment of^{the petitioners over plot No 37 in Sy Nc 133'admeasuring} 555 Sq. Yards^{Namana Beauty Bowers of Narsingi Village ' GandipetNilandal'} Ranga Reddy^{District, without following due processof lar'r" as illegal' unlawful'} contrary to^{law and consequently directthe respondentsnc t to interferewiththe} possessron and enjoyment^{of the above plot of the petitiorrrrs without following} due process^{of law.}

¶22

IA NO:¹ OF²⁰²²

¶23

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheci..umstancesStatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court maybe pleased To} issue interim^{order directing the respondentsnot to distur I the possession and} enjoyment of^{the petitioners over plot No 37, in Sy No' -: 3' admeasuring555} Sq. Yards at^{NamanaBeauty Bowersof NarsingiVilla'<;r} '^{GandipetMandal'} Ranga Reddy District,^{without following due processof lavr pending disposal of} main Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY}

¶25

' Counsel for the^{Respondents No.1to3: SMT'S'SRAVANTII} .^-_ ASST.GP FOR^{STAMPS AND REGII ,TRATION}

¶26

Counsel for the^{Respondents No.4 :}

¶27

Counsel for Respondents^{No.5&6 : SRI N'SREEDHAR REll )Y'} SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶28

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.38 3a oF 2022

¶32

THE OTTH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶33

Between:

¶34

Samala Saidi Reddy and (4) others

¶35

... Petitioners

¶36

AND

¶37

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat,

¶38

Hyderabad & (5) others.

¶39

...Respondents

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. S.Sravanthi, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos. I to 3 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Compaly Limited (TSSPDCL) appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6. perused the material available on record.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Writ Petition is hled seeking to declare the action of the respondents in

¶43

¶44

disturbing the possession ald enjoyment of th: petitioners over Plot No.37 in Sy.No.133, admeasuring 555 Sc.yards, Narnana Beauty Bowers of Narsingi Village, Gandipet Marr al, Ranga Reddy District (for brevity, "subject property"), withc I t following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶45

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.S and 6, basing on the counter liled by r rspondent No.5, submits that the revenue authorities have idenli ied Government land in Sy.No.134/4 admeasuring Ac.l2-06 gunt Ls and proposed to allot land to the respondent Nos.5 an( 6 -Corporation acimeasuring Ac.l-O2 guntas in Sy.No. 134/4, Ne t singi Village, for erection of 33 I 1 1 KV substation. After followin: due procedure, the District Collector, uide proceedings dated O2 r '5.2018^directed the Tahsildar concerned to handover advalce 1r rssession to the Superintending Engineer, TSSPDCL, ald the srt ne was handed over to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 uid.e Tahsildar File No.D/ 128 1 12017 dated 29.O5.2Ot8 along u, I h sketch plan prepared through panchanama by demarcating S y.No.13414 and the TSSPDCL has completed the construction ,r the 33/11 KV substation on the iand admeasuring to an e.< .ent of Ac. 1-20 guntas with a compound wall. The petitioners hz ve no right over the Sy.No.134 as the same is owned by the Govr: nment and has

¶46

¶47

1 I

¶48

been allotted to various religious institutions and Government offices and the respondent authorities are not interfering with the petitioners' possession over the subject property situated ln Sy.No.133 and requested to dismiss the Writ petition.

¶49

After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire material available on record, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners are claiming the subject property situated in Plot No.37 in Sy.No.l33, admeasuring 555 Sq.1,ards, Namana Beauty Bowers of Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents have already completed the construction of 33/ 11 KV substation in Sy.No.l34/4 of Narsingi Village along with a compound wall on the tand to an extent ol Ac. 1_20 guntas and the respondent authorities have categoricary stated that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property. In view of the same, if the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the boundary dispute with the respondents, they are at liberty to make an application for conducting survey of their plot and without doing the same, they cannot make an allegation against the respondent authorities. In view of the same, there is no cause of action for liling of the present Writ Petition.

¶50

¶51

Accordingll., this Writ Petition is dismissed. This order does not preclude the petitioners to make an applicat,r n for cor1ducting surve.'of their PIot No.37 in Narsingi Village, [r.. erpproaching the appropriare authoriries.

¶52

Miscellaneous applications pending, if i r y, in this Writ

¶53

Petition shall stancl closed. There shall be no or-rl .r as to costs.

¶54

SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL I):PUTY REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

I SECTION OFFICER

l One CC to SRI il/.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate. tQgt^t 1

¶60

2 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the^{St:rl ) of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶61

3 One CC to SRI N SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR^{TGSF I tCL} IOPUCI

¶62

4 Two CD Copies

BSK BS .W

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710112026

'{E Sral\1
t !l'
(.^ <br>rp \
I
t)rl t:8 ltl/l 7
) J:4,1
\ '?. ..<br>.. *
\1 1\ ;
'r r/,r al
--;)"

¶68

ORDER

¶69

WP.No.3838 ot 2022

¶70

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

K9
C
()_ 6,-t

Samala Saidi Reddy and 4 others v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Samala Saidi Reddy and 4 others v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

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

Thati Bhadramma Vs The Government of Telangana and 3 others

Mohd. Akbar Vs State of Telangana

Sri Laxmi Rallabandi Vs The State of Telangana

Mailapuram Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Salguti Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sunki Sharada Vs The State of Telangana