✦ High Court of India · 08 Oct 2025

Vaddamoni Pradeep, S/o v. Dasu, urged about

Case Details High Court of India · 08 Oct 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
08 Oct 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,105 words

10. Gollagudem Srinath Reddy, S/o.Rangareddy, aged i:bout. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 3-4, Manikyammaguda villilge of lt/andal, Rangareddy District, Telangana State. 509325 45years, Occ. I\ilaheswaram ...RESPONDENTS 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 lo issue a \ /rit order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamu:; declaring inaction on the part of the official respondent in considering the representations dated. 11-11-2024, 23-O9-2C24 to protect burial ground in Sy. No. 1431A2 to an extent of Ac.5-05guntas situated at Kalvakot revenue shivar .Jf I\4anikyammaguda village of Maheshwaram Mandal,. Rangareddy District allotted to the Schedule caste people. therein the unofficial respondents without due any permission or authorization from the competent authorities are trying to construction of Temple over the allotment of land for the burial ground to schedule caste people is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14,19, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndla and consequently direct to consider the representation, basing upon which conduct the due enquiry and direct the official respondents to stop the construction of tenrpie over the burial ground in Sy. No. 1431A2 to an extent of Ac.S-O5guntas situated at Kalvakot revenue shivar of Manikyammaguda village of Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy Districl. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 interim directions to consider the representation, basing upon which conduct the due enquiry by directing the official respondents to stop the construction of temple over the burial ground in Sy No. 143/42 to an extent of Ac. S-05guntas I II It I i I I I I ,j ,j i j situted .at kalvakot revenue shivar of tManikyammaguda village of Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRt SRIKANTI{ SURAT counsel for the Respondent No.1 ,3,4 & 5: Gp FoR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 6: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WEII Petlttou no.tOOZ ORDER This nrit petition is filed aggrieved b1, ttre inaction on the part ,:f the official respondents in considering the representatiotrs dated 1 1.11 .2024 and 23.09.2024 filed b1, the petitioners to protect the burial ground in Sy.No.l43/A2 to an extent of Ac.5-o5 guntas, situated at Kalvak<lt Revenue Shivar of Manikrrammagucla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government. Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development ztppearing for respondent Nos.1 , 3, 1 and 5 and learned Govcrnment Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent l\os.2 and 6.

3. Learneci counsel for petitioners submit.ted that though the representations \rrere made in the year 2024, no action has been taken on the said representations bv the official respondents and that the unofficial respondents are trying to \ construct a temple over the subject land. [n proof thereof, the .--..-F'-- 2 (' petitioners have filed copies of the photographs at pages No.41 to 45 of the writ papers

4. Learned Government Pieader and the learned Standing counsel appearing for unofficial respondents could not get instructions in the matter.

5. In view of the thereof, this Court deems fit and proper to direct the respondents No.2 to 6 to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 1 1.1 1 .2024 and

23.09.2024 and verify the contentions therein and take action in accordance with law, if there is any illegal construction being made by respondents No.7 to 10, as alleged by the petitiorrers. Needless to mention that the respondents No. 7 to 1O shall be given notices before taking any action against

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no orcler as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ \ To, SD/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Pan-chayat-Raj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Near Tank'bund Hyderabad, State of T'elangana. _. - t_-6_.-- _ '- -:]i"r6t .l).'.:i59

2.TheDistrrctCollector,RangareddyDistrict,T.S. 3. The District Panchayath officer, Rangareddy District; T S 4.TheMandalParishatDevelopmentofficer,ftlaheshwaram,Rangareddy 5. The Revenue Divisional officer, Kandakuru Division' Rangareddy District' 6. The tVlanda' Revenue offiCer, tt/aheshwaram N/andal' Rangareddy District' District, T.S. T.S. T.S.

7. One CC to SRI SRIKANTH SURAT' Atlvocate [OPUC] v' B.TwoCCstoGPFoRPANCHAYATRAJRURALDEV,HighCourtforthe siui" oir"trntluna at Hyderabad [oUT] g.TwoCCstclGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat HYderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD CoPies BSR 0 iHIGH COURT DATED:08/1 A12025 I I i i I ! I f ,i / / ORDER ,WP.No.10620 of 2025 -Z::r-=r .r{;s' \v't' ). \\ ,\ 0 6 ltru mm ,3rl-i'il'l!;i-a :l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS {

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments