High Court · 2025

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 pleasedtoissueawritorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWrit ofMandamusdeclaringtheactionoftheRespondent'no2i'e''TheDistrict Collector, Hyderabad in summoning me to the office and issuing Undated Notes thereby threatening to dispossess me from my land admeasuring Acres 09-1 3 Guntas, TS No.2811 part and 29 part, Block H, Ward No 9' Sy' No '129150' D3' D4, D5, D6 of Shaikpet Village, (Banjara Hills), Hyderabad and implicate me in criminal cases without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust' void and against the judicial principles and precedence and consequently set- asidetheUndatedNotesissuedbytheRespondent.No.2theDistrictCollector, Hyderabad, in the interest of iustice. t lA NO: 1 OF 2o2I Petition urrd-'r Iir-'ction 1s't cpc praying that in the ci.curnstaaces stated in the affidavit filed in srr rport of the petition, the High court ma y be pre,ased to direct the respondents 'ror to disturb and not to interfere wi - my ra wfur peacefur possession and enloynrent over the rand admeasuring Acres lg-1 3 Guntas, TS No.2811 part an(t ii 9 part, Btock H, Ward No.9, Sy. No. 12gtSO, D3. D4, D5, D6 of Shaikpet village (B. rrjara HiIs), Hyderabad, pending dis6rrrsar of the main writ petition, in the interest cf justice of justice. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI CH. OMERNATHAN counsel for the Resp.ndents: sRr L. RAVTNDER AGp FoR REVENUE The Court made the lollowing: ORDER ,? HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY UIRIT PETITION No.12688 of2o.25 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: '....to issue a uit, ord.er or direction more particutorlA one in the nature of Wit oJ Mandamts declaing the ctction of the Respondent No 2 i e The |tistict bollector Hgderabad in summoning me to the offi.ce and issuing "tlnd-ated Notes' therebg threatening to dispossess me from mg land ad-measuing Acres O9-73 Guntas Sy.No 28/ 1 (part) qnd 29 (part) Block H Word no O, Sg.l'Io.IZO/ 50, D3, D4, D5, D6 of Shatkpet Vitlage' Banjara HilLs, Hgderabad and implicate me in criminal cose's tuithout fotliwing due process of law as iltegal arbitrory un1tst uoid and against ine iualctat pinciptes and. precedence and consequentlA setaside the 'Undated Notes" lsszed bg respondent No.2 the Dtstict Co[lector Hgderabad in the interest of justice...."

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L. Ravinde r, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents'

3. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of iand admeasuring Ac.9.13 guntas, TS No.28 part and 29 part Block H, Ward No.9, Sy.No. 129/50, D3, D4, D5, D6 of Shaikpet Village' Banjara Hil1s, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through agreement of sale dated 20'01 . 1 974, frolrt its lawfui owners' It is further stated that the then Government of State of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.942 of Revenue(Q) Department dated 23.06.lgal cancelling the Sarlekhas assignments numbering 35 'l ,l I I 1l I I I I 2 = which inclurle :i1e assignment to Ghulam Mohd. from v,hom the petitioner is <rlaiming his right of title. euesti.ning tl,. same,:.. ,:._ ,:. . W.P.No. 15ria 8 (t lggT was frled and this Court I as clua shed the said G.O, :Lnd apgrieved by the same, the State har; filed e n appeai in W.A.No. -ri 9 o. 1991, wherein the Division Bench cism ssed the said Writ AplrerL_. It is further stated that aggrieved bl., the sirme, the State has fLlr d e.. appeal vide SLp (Civil) No.1041il_1C,415 of 2001 and the sar.r rirs dismissed by the Hon,ble Supr,:mr: Ccrrrt, and thus quashilg tre above said G.O has attaineri furaht,, as no further pro,:e ::cli rgs were initiated by the State Gcr.errr;nc. rt. It is further state rl I rat t:he petitioner has institutr:d I s rit vide o S.No.124 t i 999 before the XIX Junior civ -r_rdge. r- it1, civil Court, Hydr:r rtr,rc seeking regularization of the posse;sio .r ol the petilioner ir r sl, I instituted for specihc performan<:e zL'd he said suit was c e, .r,. c rl and thereafter a registered salc ck: .d vide document N o I ()() of 2OOO d,ated lZ .O4.2OOO was exe()ute .1. The grievance of t Lc. :etitioner is that in spite of the above sai:1 facts, without follcs in 3 -he due process of 1aw, responder. t \c).2_ lf istrict Collector, iri f t < <luently interfering with his p()ss{ ssrc t1 and threatening 1o di s p,ossess him from the subject 1ands.

4. As seen ficra the material piaced on record except stating that the petLtrrrr t,r' has purchased the subject propertv t rrough agreement of sll< and civil suits are pending before thc,l\.ial Court, ,/ 3 no evidence or material has been placed by the petitioner before this Court stating that respondent No'2-the District Coilector is threatening the petitioner to dispossess from the subject property' A careful reading of the affidavit would reveal that there are disputes over the subject property between the petitioner and the and relying upon the notes/ hles/ internal Government, correspondence obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner fiied this writ petition' questioning the internal correspondence of the l)istrict Collector with other officiais over the subject property lt is settled law thal a note file or internal correspondence generally doesn't affect the maintainability of a writ petition, unless it demonstrates a final decision or determination of a right or obligation that the petition challenges. The core issue for writ petition maintainability iies in the petitioner's ability to prove a violation of their fundamental rights or that the chailenged action is a function of state action or a public authority and violation of the statutory duties'

5. ln Mahadeo and othersus' Smt' SoocLn Deui and othersr ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "It is uell settled that inter-deparlmentaL communications ore tn the process of co nsider ation for aPProPiat e decision and cannot be relied upon os a basis to claim ang ight. Tfus Courl examined the said Elestion in a judgme nt reported as Omkqr Sinha v. Sahadat Klnn' Reliance was Placed on Bachhittar Sitgh v. State of Punjdb to tatd that on the file does not qmount to in order. BeJore merelg ttittng something I 2022 Live Law (SC) 730 t : I I l i , 4

6. someth n11 lunounts ta m'|,, u .,nss are z,,i; :: i;'iii:!i,t"::ijiif! :t"i^:'z';:":::! ;:t;::;::;i'i:"1ri#::i!:{i:#'i::r'.,,:'i:;,i.',1;,=:tJii ti,,:::':::t!:,:wi#;:;;;:;iii:i,y:):;':i;i:i:i;[: In v ic i, , I . rhe above, the present writ petitio : fiI,:d il devoid of merits an,l rht same is liable to be dismissed. lt is nt edless to observe that it. lre petitioner is having any claim orer the property, he is at liber.t_r. ro take steps before the competent Civil .lourt, in accordance r,it I 2q.. 7 Accor rl ,rr;11. this Writ petition is dismissed Iir <;ost s As a s,e.rL:l stand closec . the miscellan eous petitions pencling, if a: r1., shall \ //TRUE COPY//

1. One CC tt S,i ()H. Omqmathsn, ' Iy.'"?r";} ot]'- l",. 3. Two CD ()o ris s, nevenue' niiTrr'c;;",ii;r'ih":"tute or T'era-gana. at .Advocate tOpUCl SD/- P.PADMAt\TABHA REDDy DEPUTY BEGISTRAR SECI'ION OFFICER To, TJ KV HIGH COI.JFIT DATED:2510412025 I \ ORDER WP.No.12688 ot 2025 ,., r1 ,1r' 1HE S14 14: (, I I JUN 2025 /' i '.: ic, \,\ r.j:,.'..-.,-.,,,6o * l ( I i I 1 l I .11 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT ISOSTS M \