Jenig v. The State of Telangana

...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, or writs, order or orders, direction, more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS declarrng the action of the Respondent No.3 in not taking the action against the illegal construction of 4th Respondent under the name and style of Sri Kanta lVlaheshwara Swamy Temple in Petitioners Patta land in sy.No. 34lA of I\/alipuram Village, Thirumalagiri tt4andal, suryapet District without there being any valid tifle or right is illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to take necessary action against the illegal construction undertaking by 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( Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : The Court made the following: ORDER -- P FOR REVENUE 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 AND . . Petitioners 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' ...." -

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 -l 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

6. 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 its instrumentalities, which is absent in the present case.

7. 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,

2. The District Collector, Suryapet Diskict, At Suryapet 3. The Tahsildar, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Suryapet District 4. One CC to SRI D Y.L.N.CHARyULU, Advocate. [OpUC] ' Iy."":rn::fiiii- REVENUE' Hish court ro,. th" strt" or rerangana at 6. Two CD Copies lt,i BSK BS { B HE Si.q ,.) \ .J HIGH COURT DATED: 0710112026 ORDER WP.No.411 of 2026 \, \r. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )t s .'.o1 rt) b