Sri Gaddam Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
case, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnd[a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more so, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's application dated 29-'t0- 2024, seeking perinission for admeasuring 1 35 Sq.Yards or 112.86 Sq,Meters in Survey Nos.'197 and 200, situated at Pati Village and Grampanchyat, Patancfreru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequentially, to direct the respondents to grant permission of digging for domestic /drinking water borewell by considering the petitioner's application dated 29-10- 2024, in the above said property. -7t l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 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 direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 29-10-2024, to grant permission of digging for domestic/drinking water borewell, in respect of the Plot No.17 admeasuring 135 sq. Yards or 112.86 Sq.Meters in Survey Nos.197 and 200, situated at Pati village and Grampanchyat, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, during the pendency of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI METTU SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. RAVINDER, ASST. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14451 OF 2026 Date:29.04.2025 Between: Sri Gaddam Venkateswarlu AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, and three others.
ORDER:
(ORAL) Petitioner .. Respondents The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the subject Plot No.17, admeasuring 135 square yards or 112.86 square meters, in Survey Nos.197 and 200 situated at Pati Village and Gram Panchayat, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, having purchased the same from Mr. U. Kotaiah, represented by his GPA Holder Mr. P. Satish Babu, through registered sale deed bearing document No.21072 of 2024 dated 25.07.2024
2. lt is stated that the petitioner submitted application/ representation dated 29.10.2024 lo respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, ! I 2 BVR.J WP.No.1445l 2026 Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, seeking permission for digging domestic/drinking water borewell in the subject plot, but the application IS pending even though the Mandal Girdawar recommended for according permission vide his report dated
31.01.2025
3. lt is also stated that in the same subject survey numbers, respondent No.4 vlde permission letter No. 011595-212024, dated
10.10.2024, granted permission to the third parties for digging domestic/drinking water borewells. Respondent No.3 - Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Sanga Reddy District, also issued ground water feasibility report vide letter No.1772[T/SRD/GWD/ WALTtuGWFR|ZOZS dated 25.11.2025 to respondent No.4. The petitioner also paid the process fee of Rs.1,000/- by way of DD.No.452315 dated 19.07.2025 to respondent No.3.
4. Heard Mr. Mettu Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submitted that representation of the petitioner will be duly considered in accordance with law I / ,. 3 BVR,J WP.No.l445l 2026
Operative part
6. ln view of the above, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated
29.10.2024 seeking permission for digging domestic/drinking water borewell in the subject Plot No.17, admeasuring 135 square yards or
112.86 square meters, in Survey Nos.197 and 200 situated at Pati Village and Gram Panchayat, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by taking note of the report of respondent No.3 vlde letter No.1772IT/SRD/GWDMALTA/GWFR/ 2025 dated 25.11.2025 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. /ITRUE COPY// SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,
The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat Building, HYderabad.
The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District, Sang Reddy.
The Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Sanga Reddy, Sanga Reddy District.
The Tahsildhar, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.
One CC to SRl. METTU SHANKAR Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
Two CD Copies BN a t CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 2910412026 i. ,1 | ,': '. )-- ir\ ,1, s- .\.s' \ '- t.i '. l:. ORDER WP.No.14451 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: case, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 29 Apr 2025. The bench was B VIJAYSEN REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.