High Court · 2025

lThe State of Telangana, rep., by it's principal Secretary for Rev, Secreta riat, Hyd 2. The Collector, Suryapet Town, Sury'apet District. 3. The Tahsildar, Atmakur(S) Mandal, Suryapet District_ 4- Mathangi Venkanna S/o Not Know, Age:31 yrs, Ocu: Govt E mployee(Ex.VRO) 5. Matte Rama Swami 37o eitchaiah, Age:39 yrs, Occu: Agriculture Cooli 6. Pulluru Praveen 5/o Veeraiah, Age:26yrs, Occu Agriculture, 7.Azmeta Mulsuru S/o Bikya, Age: 43 yrs, Occu: Agriculturist 8. Adepu Rar,nulu S/o Venkanna, Age: 32yrs, Ocu: Agriculture 9. P.Ven katra muh,r, s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu: Ward member l0.Gundepaliy Uppaiah S/o Hanmanthu, Age:34 yrs, Occu: Upa Surpanch, ll.Guhdepally Chandraiah 6/o Biksham, Age:41 yrs, Occu: Govt. Employee l2.Arvepally Yellaiah S/o Ramulu, Age: 50 yrs, Occu: Shacksindu 13.Arvepally Shanker S/o yellaiah, Age: 25 yrs, Occu: Agricultural Cooli, 14. Pulluru Mallaiah S/o Chandraiah, Age:51yrs, Occu: Agriculture 15.Pulluru Muthaiah S/o Venkaiah, Age: 40 yrs, Occu: Agricultu re 16. Pullure La[u s/o Not Known, Age:49Jrs, Occu:Agriculture Cooli 17. Pulluru R'amulu s/o Badraiah, Age: 37 yrs, Occu:Agriculture Cooli l8.Pulluru Lingaiah S/o Venkaiah, Age:35Yrs, Occu: Agriculture, 19. Pulluru Ravi S/o Gopaiah, Age:32 yrs, Occu: Agriculture 20. Pulluru Nagababu S/o Yeshobu, Age: 30 Age, Occu: Agriculture 21.Plluru Raju s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu:Agriculture, 22. Pulluru Veeraiah s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, 23. Pulluru Lehin s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu: Agriculture 24.Pulluru Biksham.s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, 25.P Yesobu s/o Not Known, Age:49 Yrs, Occu: Agriculture, 26..M. Uppalaiah s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, 27.M. Ramesh s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu:Agriculture, 28.M. B ikshain s/o Not Known, Age:49Yrs, Occu: Agriculture, 29-M Nagaiahrs/o Not Known, Age:49 Yrs, Occu: Agriculture, 30.M.Naga bibu s/o Not Know.n, Age:49 yrs, Occu:Agriculture, . 31_M. Srinu s/o Not Known, Age:49 Yrs, Occu: Agriculture, .'M.Sydulu:s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, atte Ven.kanna s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, 'Gaddam yellaiah S/o Mallaiah, Age:25yrs, Occu: Agriculture, $.frama Chandru s/o Not Known, Age:49 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, All the above 4 to 35 are Resident ofShittigudam (Viil), Atmakure(S) Mandal,Suryapet District......RespondentNo:1to35 I I ,l I ''j^Jv Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare i) the inaction of The Respondents 1 to 3 to protect BOTHALA KUNTA-SHIKKAM LAND and its stored water, covered under Ac.3.00 Gts, in the survey No. 73, situated in the mid of the patta land of the petitioner at shettigudem Village, Atmaku(S) Mandal in Suryapet District, despite the repeated representations were made by the petitioner-Patted ar against the wrongful act of the Respondent No.4 to 35 and also ii) inaction of the respondent No.1 to 3, to enlighten the Respondent No.4 to 35 that the Shekkam- Lands are not poramboku Land and none got right over slekkam-Land and it s stored water except the petitioner being Pattedar to the sourounding Land of the SHEKKAM (Water Pond) and also iii) inaction to guard the interest of the petitioner being pattedar to the surrounded Lands of the SHEKKAM and substantiate the sustained iosses by imposing penalties on the Respondent no. 4 to 35 for the damages caused to the Sheklbm (Water-Pond) and subsequent loss to the Vari Crop which was ready for harvest was sunk in the water, such the act of leniency and recklessness of the Respondent No.1 to 3 to prevent the unlawful act of the Respondent No.4 to 35 resulted damage to the interest petitioner- pattedar - are illegal, against the natural principle of Justice. Consequently the direction may be given to the Tahsildar- Respondent No.3 to prevent the Respondent No.4 to 35 from stepping into the shikkam-Land and miss use the it s water by enlightening the villagers i.e Respondent No.4 to 35 as if shekkam-lands are not poramboku Lands and have been entering into the shekkam without knowledge of the petitioner-pattedar is an offence and the Shekkam - Land exclusively mend to procure water in the rainy season and utilise such water for irrigation purpose to the surrounding Lands and also direct the Collector- Respondents No.2 to impose penalties against the Respondent No.4 to 35 and recommend to the Government for funds to the SHEKKAM S REFORMATION and sanction financial aid to substantiate the loss to the VARI CROP, sustained by the petitio ner-pattedar. I.A.NO:1 OF 2021 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass the lnterim Direction to the Tahsildar-respondent No.3, not to permit the Respondent No. 4 to 35 or any body from the village or any other village, to enter into the BOTHALA KUNTA SHIKAM-LAND for any purpose or to plough the concern Land nor to let out the stored water from the said Shekkam (Water-Pond) for any other purpose except for irrigation to the existed SHEKKAM- SURROUNDING - LANDS at shettigudem of Atmakur(S) Mandal in Suryapet District, keeping in the view to prevent the further damages to the livelihood of the petitioner-Pattedar, as his cultivation has been depending on the stored water of the said SHIKAM (Water-Pond) since ancient days, the said shekkam existed in the mid of the Patta-Lands of the petitioner, no way to enter into the shekkam unless one trespasses the Patta-Land of the Petitioner, such water used to be collected in the rainy season, exclusively for irrigation purpose. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VARIYALA CHUDAMANI REDDY (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 35 : - The Court made the following ORDER 7 To SA MP THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.1298 of 2O2L ORDER: This petition is coming for hearing since 2O2l . On

06.02.2025 when the matter was called, there was no representation, therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption "for Dismissal". Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute this case.

2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution/ default. No order as to costs.

3. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand closed Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER I

1. Two CCs to Gp for REVENUE High Court for the St Hyderabad tourl One CC to SRI VARIYALA CHUDA MANI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies

2. 3. of Telangana at V I HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 ORDER WP.No.1298 of 2021 1 riE S r^( 14: 17 JUil Mi ( o {' J .) o t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON - PROSECUTION / DEFAULT WITHOUT COSTS. 1 T $ \o