Dyarangula Jangaiah v. The State of Telangana

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 appropnate wrrt, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in non-considering the representation of the Petitioner daled 19.12.2016 and non- initiating to allot the land to construct the graveyard to the Debbedaguda Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice consequently direct the Respondent I j.rr1?ErF Nos.3 to 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12,2016 and allot the land in Debbedaguda Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for constructron of Graveyard lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Sectron 151 cPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos 3 to 6 to consider the representatron of the petrtioner dated 19 12 2016 and atlot the land in Debbedaguda Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for construction of Graveyard pending disposal of the writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 5: SRI L. RAVINDER AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No 6 : SRI G. KIRAN KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.33333 of 2025 ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.3 to 6 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated lg.l2.2016 and not initiating any action to a-llorv the iand to construct the graveyard to the Debbedaguda Village, Kandukur Ma:tda1, Rangareddy District, the present writ petition is filed. A consequential prayer is sought to direct the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2016 and to allot the land for construction of graveyard.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the leaJlet, which has been published on 07.07.2025 disclosing that a hunger strike would be conducted at Debbedaguda Mandal, Kandukur, Mandal, Rangareddy District, for conducting a procession to the office of respondent No.4 requesting to grant / allocate necessarJr space in Survey No.59 for the purpose of constructing a graveyard. He further submitted that no action has been taken by the official respondents on the said leaJlet. Aggrieved by such inaction of official respondent No.4, 2 the present writ petition is filed. He further submitted that at the same time, the petitioner has made a representation dated 19.12.2016 to respondent No.3 alleging that some venture has been undertaken illegally i;r,- encroaching the said land rn Survey No.59 by some unknou'n persons anrl subsequently the property was sold to some prn ate persons a r-rd had brought the said fact to the notice of the unofllcial respondent No.3. But no action has been taken on the petitioner's representation dated 19-12.2O16 and hence seeks to pass appropria le directrons.

4. Le:u-ned Assrstant Government Pleadr:r for Revenue on the other hand strbmitted that there is no representation as such made by the petitioner. as seen from the materia,l papers of the rvrit petition ar-rd no such representatron is enclosed to the writ petition. Hence it is bereft of any valid reasor-rs to entertain the said writ petition in the present form. He further submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 19-12.2O16 submittecl to respondent No.3 does not bear aly acknowle<igment of thr: official respondent No.3 and it is completely contra-r], ro the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel and submitted that this writ petition does not stand on merits and seeks to dismiss this writ petition on merits.

5. This Court having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and on perusing i I I (, the material placed before this Court and on examining the same, is of the opinion that in the absence of any valid representation in I i consonance with the relief as sought for in this writ petition, and since the petitioner's representation dated lg.t2.2ol6 does not bear any acknowledgement of the office of the official respondent No.3, this Court cannot direct the oificia,l respondents to act upon the said representation. This writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if alry pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. SD/.B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 One CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI G KIRAN KUMAR STANDING COUNSEL, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] Two CD Copies DAN BS Yx HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER WP.No.33333 of 2025 R IHE SI.i;' ( t: () C) -(

4.. x 2 4 ;,IAfl 202 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS -,*6&'\ \[.r.," --a+"