The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 3

5. 6 The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

The District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Armoor Division, Armoor Proper and Mandal, Nizamabad District. The Tahsildar, Velpur Mandal, Velpur Proper and Mandal, Nizamabad District. The Circle lnspector of Police, Armoor (Rural), Armoor Proper and Mandal, Nizamabad District. Sri. Nachannagari Raghupathi, S/o. not known to. the petitioners, Age. Major' Occ. Agricultu"re, F/ol Pbchalnadkuda Village, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad District.

7. Sri. Lingesh, S/o. S/o Agriculture, Rl/o. Pachalna not known to the petitioners, Age. Maior, Occ dkuda Village, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad District. I I \

8. Sri. Dayyala Pedda Gangaram, S/o. not known to the 1:titioners, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpu Mandal, Nizamabad District.

9. Sri. Nadipola Gangaram, S/o. not known to the petitic,r ers, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Mandtrl Nizamabad District.

10. Sri. Japiri Gattu Narsaiah, S/o. not known to the petitio ers, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Rl./o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Mandzrl Nizamabad District. 11.Sri. Armoor Shekar, S/o. not known to the petitiorrs, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Rl,/o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Mande I Nizamabad District, '12.Sri. Naresh, S/o. not known to the petitioners, Age. ll rjor, Occ. Agriculture, Rio, Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabac District.

13. Sri. Arun, S/o- not known to the petitioners, Age. Majo-, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad DirJ ict.

14. Sri. Goondla Suresh, S/o. not known to the petitior t rs, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Fl./o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Manda I Nizamabad District.

15. Sri. Jumbarthi Narender, S/o. not known to the petitior :rs, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Mandal Nizamabad District. 16.Sri. Siddula Naveen, S/o. not known to the petitione 's, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Rl./o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur lvlandal Nizamabad District. '1 7. Sri. Goja Narender, S/o. not known to the petition: s, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad District.

18.Sri. Nallaveli Ganga Reddy, S/o. not known to the pt:rtioners, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpr i Mandal, Nizamabad District.

19. Sri. Jana Laxman, S/o. not known to the petitioner ;, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Manda , Nizamabad District. 20. Sri. Goondla Srinivas, S/o. not known to the petitiort 's, Age. Major, Occ, Agriculture, RUo. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Manda , Nizamabad District. 21 . Sri. Baddam Gangadhar, S/o. not known to the petitio r us, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Manda, \izamabad District.

22.Sri. Enugu Gangareddy, S/o. not known to the petitiorr rs, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R./o. Pachalnadkuda Village, Velpur Manda, \izamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind i praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the {igh Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one r the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the actic r of the respondent No. 3/Revenue Divisional Officer in passing the orders in Cas r No.841103412024, relyi rding with the dated 21-06-2024, imposing conditions in excavating/lifting/taking the sand from Pedda Vaagu by the v I lgers of Jankampet, d abusing the powers vested in the said authority, instead of permitting the Jankampet Vitlagers to lifUexcavate/take the sand from their village border of Pedda Vaagu, basing on the false and baseless report submitted submitted by the respondent No. S/Circle lnspector of Police, when there is no issue regarding the border of both the villages, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the orders passed by the respondent No. 3/Revenue Divisional Officer in Case No. 841103412024, dated 21-06-2024, thereby not to prevent the petitioners and their Jankampet Villagers in any manner in excavating/taking/lifting the sand from the Pedda Vaagu from their village border side Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : AGP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6to22:. SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER 7 I I i i I i I ! i i I I TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OI TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.\T }NUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No. 16924 of 2ai 4 .)at:d: LO.L2.2O25 Between: S.Ramesh and six others .. P,1 l lioners And The State ofTelangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and (2 l) others Re sponclents ORDER This Writ Petition is filed under Art i,: : 226 c>f the Constitution of India, seeking the follou,ing reLr - )'s:- ".-. to issue al order or direction more particular I nature of writ of mandamus or a-ny other ap1-'r declaring the action of thc respondent \c Divisional Officer in passing the orders ir r 341LO3412O24, dated 2l-06-2024, imposing tL regarding u.ith the excavating/ hfting/ taking th: Pedda Vaagu by the villagers of Jankampet. r powers vested in the said authority, instcad ol p' Jankampet Villagers to lift/ excavate / take the sarr village border of Pedda Vaagu, basing on the falst i report submitted by the respondent No.5/Circlc Police, r.r,hen there is no issue regarding the borct, r villages, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, nulL :rr violative of principles of natural justice and a1s r Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Inr contrary to t}le provisions of Criminal Proc r Consequently set aside the same, a;rd to pass suc r or orders ...'' one rn tl re r1;rizrte writ 3/ Revenr-Le Case No. rditions in sand from busing ttre mittrng the lrom their rd basclcss Lrspector ,rf of both the I void alld violative of a and also Lure Code. other order ) 2

2. Heard Mr.K.Venu Madhav, Iearned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respon.Je;rt Nos. I to 4 and Mr.Kondadi Aj ay Kumar, learned counsel for unoflicial respondent Nos.6 to 22.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3, in order to prevent public nuisance and to maintain peace and tralquility arnong general public, passed the impugned order in Case No.B4/ 1034 /2024 dated 21.06.2024 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C by imposing conditions in excavatin g/lifting/ taking the sald from Pedda Vaagu by the villagers of Jankampet Village instead of permitting the Jankampet villagers to lift/ excavate / take the sald from their village border of Pedda Vaagu ald the same is abuse of the powers vested in the authority

4. He further states that on 12.09.2024, the petitioners have submitted an application under Section 145(5) of Cr.P.C. before the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Armoor stating that, on

08.04.2024, both the parties were issued notices stating that there ft-as- a village border dispute at Jankampet Village and t7'', 3 Pacha-lnadkuda villages and that there u'as no rorder dispute between both the Villages. Stating thus. t re petitloners requested the authoritl' not to prevent th I villagers of Jankampet Village in excavating/ taking/ liftin5; sand from the border of their Jankampet village, Pedda Vagr artcl that the respondents and other villagers of Panchalnadl< rda village are already excavating/ taking/ iifting sand fronr thcir i'illage border.

5. He contends that respondent No.3 ougl-t - to lrave taken care of the welfare of the villagers of Jarrkamp et Village and the petitioners being the villagers of said Vil i ge are put to suffer hardship. He states that though the p t titioners have filed an application under Section ia5(5) of Cr . '.C. seeking to cancel the said order before respondent No.3 no action has been taken by respondent No.3 tili date. Hen: r. he seeks to set aside the impugned order

6. Opposing the sarne, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 22 contends that the imp Lgned order is passed by respondent No.3 to protect put,l c peace arrd tranquillity. and indulgence of this Court, at tlr s stage is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the \v -it Petition ] 4 (

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that the petitioners have hled an application under Section 145(5) before respo;rdent No.3 and hence, the cause in this Writ Petition does not survi'/e ior adjudication any further. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. Having regard to the submissions of all the learned counsel, on perusal of the material available on record and upon considering the fact that the petitioners have already filed an application under Section 1a5(5) of Cr.P.C. before respondent No.3 and the same is pending consideration till date, this Court, without making any observations on the merits or demerits of the case, deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to examine the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law, by issuing notices to all the interested parties including unofficia-l respondent Nos.6 to 22 and affording them sufficient opportunity of hearing. Since, notice is already directed upon unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 22, further service of notice on unofhcial respondent Nos'6 to 22 stands dispensed with 5 g . With the above direction, this Writ Petiti rr-r is disposed of. No costs Miscellzrr-reous petitions pending, if arrr, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY' SDI. VI. OSMAN ALI BAIG AS:] 514111 REGISTRAR / I SECTION OFFICER tne State ot Ielangana, Hyderabad. 1 IP Lr]l"iq,rl Secretary.to the .Revenue Department, jecretariat Buitdings, 2. The District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad 3. The Revenue Divisional officer cum sub Divisionrr Magistrate, Armoor Division, Armoor Proper and Mandal, Nizamabad Distrirl

4. The Tahsildar, Velpur Mandal, velpur proper and Mand r , Nizamabad District. 5. The Circle lnspector of Police, Armoor (Rural), Armocr proper and Mandat, Nizamabad District. O. One CC to SRI K VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCl 7. One CC to SRI KONDADT AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OF( C] B. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the. State of Telangana.

9. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State o, -elangana. 10. Two CD Copies q- [OUT] PVL HIGH COURT DATED:1011212025 ORDER WP.No.16924 of 2024 i--) ESiAI t ( jtir{ 2trii (-) 0 * !': :::::;l.r- '',1 / DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $r. c"\S"\ P,wR\"