High Court · 2025

Petitiqn undqt Artiele 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statgd in :the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to iqiue aq apprgpriate Writ, order or Direction' more particularly one in the natpre Q{ Writ of Mandamus' to declare the action of the 3 and 4th respondents in not laking any action against the unofficial respondents and their illegal acts wha alg interfering with petitioners possession and enioyment of the I land r.e,, wa\/ t() petitioners lands and as arbitrary, illegal, agair st the principles of naturar justice L r'constitutionar and arso vioration of provisions rf easement Act. IA NO: 1 oF 20 ?? Petit on un<1er Section lgi gp! prqylr.lg th?l in the circunrstances stated in o,*:,1"n the 4th respondgnt to iegistgg the affidavir frteri ir support of lhe petition, thJ Higtr Court rray ," il;;;;, orders directino the 3r{ reppond,e..,gt t9 igtpoge appropriato praceedings lo maintain law a.c order tg pr?l:"t lIF *bli.qg way towardsi peririoners tands, by 11e Jrilar cases rnder appropriare :o: section of law aEainst thg ungffici2l fgipoof,Eot. restraining thern not to interfere tnu peacefrr possessjgn gqrd gpjgymqnt pf petitiongrs way / road,"*uro, *" Iands siluakrd in livlvgy r-lg eg. aqflgFsutrng Ac.?7-oo gt, "itrute;rt;;;;;; Village Ranranrr,et man-;at, y"O,.qf,4fi ,_qinSi, Di?rrict pendins disposat of rhis lnto. lA NO: 2 oF 2022. Between: Pu-nna Jagan MoFz n, S/a.Late vrlage. Ramanr ac e.t Mnada'|, y AND AOric:utrur e R/o Siripuram l;U,OcC ...pETlTlONER/RESIpONDENT No.5 1 2 3 4 5 Kunuru sudershan, g/o. late Bixapathi, Age. T0yrs,occ Agncutture Kunuru Sathyan arayana, S/o LEte Bi;rapathi, Age.60 yrs ()cc ,r\gricuture Kunuur shel(ir - S/o. sreerar4gf g fge, QTyrs, ogc.Agricultu re Kunuru Riavinder, S1g.Srggrag1,;!U. Agq. E$yrs,Occ.AgrrcuIure Kunuru Na\r)()n Xumar, Slo.Spinaiah, Age.3syrs,Occ Agr culture Al!,1* *O Siripuram Villagg:iri'Ralrlanlrapet Mandat. \,ada,Jri Bhuvanagiri 6 I he State c'Telangana, Rep. p I elanga'ra [jtitte. Sbcretariai, H 7 The_ State r.!. Ielangana, Rgg. r etangar)a Si..Erte. Secretariat, Hiiderabad ...RFSPONDENTS No.'t to5,/pETtTtONERS y its f rincipal Secretary Re ve,rt e Department, yoerabact .qy tts principal Secretary Home I)epartment, 8 Ihe Tah;rsildar Ramannapet Mandal yadadri Bhongir Drstrict 9. fhe Statrort r-l<:ttse officer, Ramannapet police station yadadrr llhongir Distrrct ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in Court may be pleased to the affidavit titeO ln support ot tne petition' tn" ':n: l'A N9' 1 9f 2022 in w P' vacate rhe interim grders $ated raqqiao?a eass1!.i1 No. 2Q10 e!4922hv diig's$si6 wp' tlto ?010 pf zo22 with costs in the interest of justiPe' counsel for t!19 Pglitiotgf : qfil JAI{ARDHAN GoUD SUNKABI : GP FoR RE::ltuE "r *, rye,r"'l,{gntei!'lo''1Ba counsg! counseltol $9 nsfPol$f. counselfot thg Re.fPol{E"q U"'F ; $Rl MALIPEDDI rhe coqrrt q?qe tEF foli$!{ing; oRpER 't'-rnQ l'"'!*t: GP FQR H9ME sRlNrvAs REDDy HON']3LE SRT WSTICE C.V.BIIASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No .2O1O of 2022 ORDER: This \\rrit Petition is filed under Articl e .226 of the Constitrr. i,rrL of India seeking the following relief: "...1o i:;;rr: an appropriate Writ, order or Directio:r, more paricul rly one in the nature of Writ of Manda:nus, to dec ar e r le action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in r_rot taklnli rur,, action against the unoflicial ,""po.ra..rt n.rO their r Iesal acts who are interfering witfr p.tltion,.." pos:;c;sion and enjoyment of the la-nd Le., way t,, p.titln.r,,." lanc s i , I as arbitrary, illegal, against' *; ;;"1;,;" n:rtrtrul r stice, unconstitutional and also 'rriota_.ion ", pror is orL: cf easement Act and pass..."

2. Con;irlr_.:ecl the submissions of the learne,i c(.,unsel for the r,t_sp(,(.1ive parties

3. Wl e I t.te matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representatro,t or-r behalf of the petitioner even though the matter is 1rr,:; r:d under the caption "2.15 p.m.,,, as it s olcl mattcr. L:rrrr ecl counsel for the respondents 1s pr€ sent. Therefore , rlri ; s,rit petition is being disposed of basir.:g on the facts merLricned in the aflidavit. I I I ,i I I I i I I j I I 4 The The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners and Possessors of agricultural lands to an extent of in Sy.No.334 situated at Siripuram Acs.27.O0 guntas Village, Ramalnapet Mandal' Yadadri Bhongir District' It is stated that there is a 15'feet wide road which runs from north to souttr through the land admeasurrng Ac.O.06 guntas in Suwey No'3 12 to have ingress and aggress to reach the lands of the Petitioners in SY'No'334 grievance of the Petitioners is that resPondent No'S has blocked the said road and not alowing the petitioners to utilize the said road to have ingress and aggress to reach their lands and also the neiglrboring fields' 5. A vacate stay petition is fiIed by the respondent stating that the road' clarmed by the petitioners is not existing in Sy'No'334' in fact' as per the Village Revenue map, the nature of the larrd is shown as agricultural land and it is no where mentioned in the map that there is an existing road/pathway leading from the lancl in Sy'No'334' It is stated that if the petitioners are having grievance any withregardtotheireasementaryrightsortheyare i l I I I I I I I \ \ disputin5l that there is an existing road, the writ is not a remerly 1() ilgitate their grievances. 6 . Sy.No.3itzL. Sy.No.3 ttZ made b,y lc arned counsel that ,.here is an Ihi:; rlourt has carefully examined the sub.rnissions for the parties. Except stating existing l5' feet road leadit.Lg from [o have access to the petitioners, Iand in the petitioners have not placed an5, do cument rn suppc,rt ot- the said contention. The only grielanc e of the petitionen; i,; that respondent No. 5 is blocking th e road which is nct depicted in the revenue rer:ords. If the petitioner-s e a.sementary rights are violated, they are having alternati,,e arLd effective remedy to approach the corrrpetent Civil Cour. lrv instituting a comprehensive Cirril s;uit to establish rhat there is an existing road and blockage of the said roa.d Lr-r. ...ro.rd"rlt No. S, their easementarv rights have ber_'r rrll:cted ancl to decide the disputed :ssu,: i.e., whether f lrt,-,t is .n existing road and the said rcrad :brms part of Sv Iri, r. I l9 and the said road is having acces:,; and the bloc[:aq,,. cf t[,re road would cause obstruction to have ingress zLnd luleress to the petitioners land, these i,.;sues I l are required to be examined after elaborate evidence and the writ petition is not the remedy to resolve ttre inter se disputes with regard to nature of the lands and the existing of road

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed- No costs' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending' if any, shall stand dismissed' /fTRUE COPY" "B';",i*.iEBlL?A,^H SECTION OF FICER To, 1 2 3 vocate. [OPUCI the State of Telangana One CC to SRI JANARDHAN GOUD SUNKARI' to GP FoR REVENUE' High Qqurt for ,*" "", to*'"tl". ro Gp FOR HoME, High cqurt for the state of Telangana at :'.'"T:T J::Jl''""' sRrNrvAs REDDY' Advocate toPucl 4 5. Two CD CoPies BSK BS \q/ --i:=:::: :_ '-\ I rf t l, fr,ti' * o \ o.\ f' 2 7 ltili, ln6 r"_i ? J o o * ( 11- 1;,,,,; I ';-o t HIGH COUIFIT DATED:12,tCt3l2O2S ORDER WP.No.2O10 of Z0Z2 DISMISSING HE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS dfe+ k 6le'