Jenigala Papaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

Jenigala Papaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued declaring the action of Respondent No.3 (Tahsildar) in not taking action against Respondent No.4's construction on the petitioners' patta land in Sy.No.34/A of Malipuram Village, and directing Respondent No.3 to take necessary action against the construction. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought; the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed, with the petitioners at liberty to work out the remedies available under law and no order as to costs.

Ratio / Principle

Though the petitioners assert absolute ownership and possession over the subject lands supported by pattedar passbooks, the allegations regarding illegal occupation and construction by Respondent No.4 involve seriously disputed questions of fact, including the exact location of the alleged construction, identity of the land, and competing claims over Sy.No.34; such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and require evidence, which can only be examined by a competent civil court.

Key takeaways

The dispute is predominantly between private parties, namely the petitioners and Respondent No.4, relating to alleged trespass and construction; such private disputes do not ordinarily warrant interference under writ jurisdiction unless there is a clear violation of statutory or constitutional rights by the State or its instrumentalities, which is absent in the present case.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (E.V. Venugopal J.), Writ Petition No. 411 of 2026, decided 07-01-2026: Two agriculturist brothers asserting absolute ownership and possession of patta lands in Malipuram Village, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Suryapet District, supported by pattedar passbooks Nos. T29220110189 and T29220110188 issued by Respondent No.3, sought a writ of mandamus declaring the Tahsildar's inaction illegal and directing him to act against an alleged illegal construction undertaken by Respondent No.4 (Sri Kanta Maheshwara Swamy Temple, rep. by its president Gundla Somaiah) on their land in Sy.No.34/A, after Respondent No.4 unloaded stones thereon at night on 18.12.2025 and the Tahsildar failed to act on their representation dated 21.12.2025. Held: the allegations involve seriously disputed questions of fact, including the exact location of the alleged construction, identity of the land, and competing claims over Sy.No.34, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and require evidence examinable only by a competent civil court; the dispute is predominantly between private parties relating to alleged trespass and construction, and such private disputes do not ordinarily warrant writ interference unless there is a clear violation of statutory or constitutional rights by the State or its instrumentalities, which was absent here. Disposition: writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits; petitioners left at liberty to work out remedies available under law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

[^32ee ]

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

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

WRlT PETITION NO: 411 OF²⁰²⁶

Between:

Jenig ala Papaiah, S/o. Jenigala^{Avilaiah,Aged 70 years, Occ. Agriculture,FJo} H.No. 3-29, lrlalipuram Village,^{Thirumalagiri} lvlandal, Suryapet District, Telangana

Jenigala Ramulu, S/o- Jenigala^{Avilaiah, Aged65 years, Occ. Agriculture,Rl/o-} H.No. 3-29, tVlalipuram^{Village, Thrrumalagiri ltrlandal, SuryapetDistrict,} Telangana

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

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

The District Collector, Suryapet^{District,At Suryapet}

The Tahsildar, Thirumalagiri^{I/andal, SuryapetDistrict}

4.Kanta Maheshwara swamy^{Temple,lr,4alipuramVillage, Thirumalagiri lvlandal,} Suryapet District, Telangana^{Rep- By its president, Gundla Somaiah S/o'} Papaiah, Age 55^{years,Occ. Agriculture,R/o. Ir,4alipuramVillage'Thirumalagiri} Mandal, Suryapet District,^Telangana

...RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High court maybe pleased} to issue writ, or writs, order^{or orders, direction, more particularly one in the natureof} wRlT oF MANDAMUS^{declarrngthe action of the Respondent No.3 in not taking the} action against the illegal^{construction of 4th Respondent under the name and styleof} Sri Kanta lVlaheshwara^{SwamyTemplein Petitioners Patta land in sy.No. 34lA of} I/alipuram Village, Thirumalagiri^{tt4andal, suryapet Districtwithout there being any} valid tifle or right is illegal^{arbitraryand consequently directthe RespondentNo.3 to} take necessary action against^{the illegal construction undertakingby the Respondent}

No.4 in Petitioners land in Sy.No.34/A situated at Malipurarr /illage, Thirumalagiri [/andal, Suryapet District.

I.A. No. 1 oF 2O26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurr ;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may br: cleased to direct the Respondent No.4 not to raise any constructions in Petitioner: land in Sy.No. 34/A situated at lvlalipuram Village, Thirumalagiri [/andal, Suryapet I strict.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.Y.L.N.Charyulu Counsel for the Respondents No.'lto3: SRI L.RAVINDER, A( P FOR REVENUE -- Counsel for the Respondents No.4 :

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF. TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAI

WRIT PETITION No.411 of 2o.26

DATE OF ORDER: 07.OL.2O26

Between:

Jenigala Papaiah and others

. . Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, and others

. . . Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief:

"..-pleased lo issr-re urit, or u,rits, orcler or orders, direction, more particularly one in the rtature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaing the action of the Resportdent No.3 in not taking the actiort agairtst the illegal constraction of 4th Respondent under the name ancl style of Si Konto Maheshwctra Suarny Temple in Petitioners Patta land in

Page 2 of5

Sy.No.34/A of Malipurom Village, Thirunrulaqi i Mcurdal, Suryapet District tDithout there being at^LA t)( t^;.d title or ight is illegal ctrbitrary and consequently lirect th<' Responclenl No.3 to toke necessary actiort. r,, ctirt::t tht, illegaL constntction undeftaktng bg the Respo i Tert No.4 in Petilioners land in S!1.No.34/A situated at i[alilrtratn l/illcLge, Thintrnalagii Mandal, Suryapet Distrtr' ...."

Heard Sri D.Y.L.N.Charyrrlu, learned colrr iel appearing for the petitioners and Sri L.Ravinder, lear : :d Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondt,: rt Nos.1 to 3 afld perused the record.

Learned counsel appearing for the peli tners would submit that petitioner No.1 herein is the absohr e o{rner and possessor of land to arl extent of Acs.2.C( guntas tn Sy.No.34/E and land to an extent of Ac.0 guntas 1n Sy.No.1 19/ 1, situated at Malipuram Village, I hrrumalagiri Mandal, Suryapet District. Petitioner No.2 lr:rein is the absolute owner and possessor of lald to rr r extent of Acs.3. 15 guntas 1n Sy.No.31/A/8, Ac.0.3C guntas 1n Sy.No.34A/1, Ac.2.O0 guntas in Sy.No.34AA2 Lnd Ac.O.12 guntas in Sy.No.l19 /2, situated at the very^.; rme village Respondent No.3 a-lso issued pattedar passt ( oks to the

Page 3 of5

petitioners uide passbook Nos.T29220110189, T29220110188. The petitioners are eking their livelihood by doing cultivation.

Respondent No.4, who is the self-declared president of Sri Kanta Maheshwara Swamy Temple in Malipuram Village, Thirumalagirir Mandal, Suryapet District started raising structure in the lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.34 v"ithout there being any valid right or title over the subject lands. The petitioners raised objection and also prevented them when they tried to unload the stones. Thereafter respondent No.4 went away but in the night time they unloaded the stones on 18.12.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners approached respondent No.3 and submitted representation dated 21.12.2025 atd requested to take action against respondent No.4. Despite receiving the said representation, respondent No.3 has not acted upon it. Hence, the^present writ petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for^Revenue would submit that the petitioners without there being^any

Pagc 4 ofs

material evidence with regard to the encr,t rchment of respondent No.4 into the lands of the petit i rners, have rushed to this Court by filing the present writ p( r ition, which is misconceived. Hence, seeks to dismiss tht: rresent u,rit petltlon

-l

In the light ol the aforesaid facts and circrL ostances of the case and upon perusing the material availabl, on record, this Court is of the opinion that though the petit:r ners assert absolute ownership ald possession over the srt tject lands supported by pattedar passbooks, the allegatiorr r regarding illegal occupation and construction by respor dent No.4 involve seriously disputed questions of fact, in< luding the exact location of the alleged construction, ide:t _ity of the land, and competing claims over Sy.No.34. Str<. L disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisr iction a-rrd require evidence, which can only be exam r ed by a competent civil court. The dispute is predominani y between private parties, namely the petitioners and respon lent No.4, relating to alleged trespass and construction. Srr:h private

Page 5 of5

disputes do not ordinarily warr€rnt interference under writ jurisdiction, unless there is a clear violation of statutorv or constitutional rights by the State or its instrumentalities, which is absent in the present case.

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for in the present writ petition as the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. Needless to mention that the petitioners a-re at liberty to work out the remedies as avaiiable under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if arly, pending in this writ petition sha_ll stand closed.

SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

ECTION OFFICER

1 The Principal S Hyderabad. ecretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Telangana State,

The District Collector, Suryapet Diskict, At Suryapet

The Tahsildar, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Suryapet District

One CC to SRI D Y.L.N.CHARyULU, Advocate. [OpUC]

' Iy."":rn::fiiiiREVENUE' Hish court ro,. th" strt" or rerangana at 6. Two CD Copies

lt,i

BSK

BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710112026

B { HE Si.q
,.) ct
, <br>il
\r. .J
ci

ORDER

WP.No.411 of 2026

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

)t^s .'.o1 rt) b