The High Court · 2025

1. G. Prashanth Kumar, S/o. Sri. G. Dhananjaya, Aged 51 years, Occ Business' 2. G. Sandeep, S/o. G.Dhananjaya, Aged 48 y-ears, Occ Business, RJo H No' 3. G-Runip Kumar, S/o. G.Dhananjaya, Aged 52 ye^ars, Occ.Business, Rio' Plot No. 10b, Road No. 3, West lrlarredpally, Secunderabad. H.No. Plot No. 100, Road No. 3, West Marredpally, Secunderabad The petitioners no.2 and 3 represented by their GPA petitioner no 1 AND ...PETITIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Secretariate Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Collectoi and District lvlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Sainikpuri, Ranga Reddy Diltrict.

4. The Tahsildar, Keesara lvlandal, Keesara, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachi bowli, Ranga Redddy District. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri, Sainikpuri, Kushaiguda, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

7. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal Division, Kushaiguda, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

8. The Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station, Kushaiguda, Kapra, 9. Mariamma, W/o. J.lssac, Aged 67 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No- 29- Ranga Reddy District. 3971202, Madhuranagar, Neredmet, Secunderabad.

10. M.Nirmala, Wo. Ranjith, Aged 35 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No. 29- 39T1202,Madhuranagar,Neredmet,Secunderabad ...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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents no.2 in addressing a letter Lr. No. C1196512015 dated 16-01-2016 to the respondent no. 5 to take necessary action by giVing strict instructions to the concerned police officials and the letter in Lr.No. 4/2020/2014 dated 01-05-2015 addressed by the respondent no.4 to the respondent no.2 saying that a panchanama is conducted and my plot of land admeasui-t -t ;r"; i; possession to the respondent no .9, and in the guise r i".ponO"ntt no. 2 to 8 presurising and threatening the petiii nrriJ ou"r. possession of an extent of their land admeasuring r."tponO.nit no. 9 and 10, when already the respondent no J from the competent civil courts, and the civil suits are pt: O.S.No.f Saa of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble ll Additionrt nanga neOOy District at L. B Nagar, filed by the p-etitioners' in" sponO"nt no. 9 in O S No. 1609 of 2012 on the file o' S"nior. Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B Nagar' alluJicatlon of luitice system, is nothing but arbitrary' illegt of priniiples of natural justice and violative of Articles Constitution of lndia. Consequently, direct the respondents n: "i,jfrtr" ana not to threaten the petitioners to forego an extent of le r rq. V"rO. out of the land owned and possessed by the nrrnLlrt in Sy. No.591' 595,596 and 597/4 situated at Kh;p; village and Municipality, Keesara Mandal' Ranga Rerl I 64.9 sq. Yards is f the said letters the rners to forego and i4.9 sq. yards to the suffered with orders rding on the file of Senior Civil Judge, and the suit filed bY :lon'ble ll Additional by running Parallel I, null and void and 14, '19 and 21 of the 2 to 8 not to harass d admeasuring 64.9 retitioners in surveY :ashweriPuri colonY. ly District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(wPMP. NO: 16679 OF 2016) PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecir;umstancesStatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmir,bepleasedtodirect ihe responoents no. 2 to g not to harass and riot to threaten I re petitioners to hand oulr. tn" possession of 64.9 sq- yards of land. out of I re land owned and po..".r.i by them in survey numbers in SV |9' 5S1' t95' 596 and 597/A situated at Eashweripuri colony, Khapra village and Municipe ity, Keesara Mandal, Ranga ReddY District couns6lforthePetitioners:SRIK.SAIKRISHNAFoRSRII:.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENIJ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 TO 8: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.10: SRI G.KALYAN CHAKI:AVARTHY Counsel for the ResPondent No.9: - The Court made the following: ORDER = Y I t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 13341 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitulion of lndia \ seeking the following relief: "... Io lssue an order or direction more paiicularly one in the nature of wit of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in addressing a letter Lr. No- C1/965/2015 dated 16-01-2016 to the respondent No. 5 to take necessary action by giving strict instructions to the concerned police officials and the letter in Lr.No. N2020/2014 dated 01-05-2015 addressed by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 2 saying that a panchanama is conducted and my plot of land admeasuring 64.9 sq. yards is given in possession to the respondent No. 9, and in the guise of the said letters the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 pressuizing and threatening the petitioners to forego and hand over possesslon of an extent of their land admeasuing 64-9 sq. yards to the respondent Nos. 9 and 10, when already the respondenf No. 9 suffered with orders from the competent Civil Courts and the civil suit O.S. No. 1983 of 2009 is pending on the file of the Hon'ble ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Distict, at L.B. Nagar, filed by the petitioners and the suit filed by the respondent No. 9 in O.S. No. 1609 of 2012 on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Distict, at L.B. Nagar, by running parallel adjudication of justice system, r's nothing but ahitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of pinciples of natural iustice and violative of Adicles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Consequently, direct the respondent Nos.2 to I not to harass and not to threaten the petitioners to forego an extent of land admeasuring 64.9 sq. yards out of the land owned and possessed by the petitioners in survey numbers rn Sy Nos. 597, 595, 596 and 597/4, situated at Eashweipuri Colony, Khapra Village and Municipality, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distict, and fo pass such other order or orders..."

2. Mr. K Sai Krishna, Iearned counsel, representing [/r K Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the cause in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the petition has become infructuous i l) I 2 3 Recording the said submission, the writ petil on is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs Pendinq miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE Copy/l SD/. (.BHAVANI SWAMY ASST $TANT REGISTRAB. I 1 .1:- .. -- i becrroru oFFrcER NU'TMADHAV. Advocate toPUCl HOlVlE, High Court for the Statb o' [elangana. at 'I . One CC to SRI K.VE 2. Two CCs to GP FOR Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR Hyderabad tourl One CC to SRI G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY , Advocat: IOPUCI Two CD Copies REVENUE, High Court for the Stat r of Telangana, at

4. To PSK. BSR HIGH COURT DATED:1 210912025 ORDER WP.No.13341 of 2016 )(I I I rlc. \) AIe o(-) t 5 ''i r, q 7026 * I ) !,strqTC t t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS a. \Y