Smt. Vallabhudasu Anjamma v. 1, 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 Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents more particularly respondent no.2 in not considering the representation dated.18-8-2025 of the petitioner and not initiating any enquiry/ appropriate action against the then respondent no.4 and 5, basing on the representation of the petitioner dated.18-8- 2025, despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, the respondent no.2 did not act upon the same is bad, arbitrary, void and against the principles ,)f natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 3004 of the Constitutiorr of lndia and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to consider the representalion dated.18-8-2025 submitted by the petitioner and to conduct a fair enquiry anrj to take necessary action against the then respondent no.4 and 5 in accordancer with law and consequenily. lA NO: 1 O= 2025 Petiton under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil. filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the responlent no.2 to consider and dispose of the representation dated.lg-g- 2025 subnritted by the petitioner by conducting a fair enquiry and to take necessary ection against the then respondent no.4 and 5 in accordance with law within the time frame fixed by the Hon'ble court and consequently Counsel for the Petitioner: SRty. SHASHTDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY The Court rnade the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGIOPAL WRIT PEIITION 0.34415 of 2O2S ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.08.2025 and not initiating any enquiry/ appropriate action against respondent Nos.4 and 5, basing on the said representation, despite receiving the sarne and acknowledged, the present writ petition is filed. A consequential prayer is sought to consider the said representation and to take necessary action against the then respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband was allotted plot No.74 by the Government in the year 1985, which remained in their possession till his demise. Due to financial constraints, no construction co_uld be undertaken. Subsequently, one Sama Jangaiah, who is not made a party to this writ petition, attempted to encroach upon the said plot. The petitioner, therefore, instituted O.S.No.36 of 2015 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla. In the said suit, Sama Jangaiah filed a written statement claiming that the plot in question belonged to his wife, .ed .? r 2 Sama Yadamma. It is further submitted that a forgery has been committed in the office of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, and that the said MRCI, Mr. P.Srinivas Reddy, in his deposition before the Civil Court, stated that tampering had been committed in the relevant file Based on such forged documents, proceedings were issuing in the narne of Sama Yadamma, and the concerned Panchayat Secretary a-lso issued procet:dings in favor of both parties. Alleging such forgery, the petitioner lociged a complaint through Prajavani to respondent No.2, requesting €ippropriate action against respondent Nos.4 and 5. However, no action has been taken, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue sultmitted that the writ petition has been filed under complete mis,conception of facts and law. The issue pertains to a civil dispute, whi,:h is already pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any act or evidence given in the said proceedings, the appropriate course is to seek red.ress before the Civil Court, not through filing of this writ petition before this Court and seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

5. This C,rurt, having heard the submissions of both the parties, and upon perusal of the record., finds that the subject of the dispute is essentially c:ivil in nature, arising out of the alleged forgery and a {.: .: i I i 3 tampering of records, which is already an issue before the Civil Court in O.S.No.36 of 2015. The petitioner, if so advised, may avail appropriate remedies before the said Court under the provisions of law for taking necessary action against respondent Nos.4 and 5.

6. However, since the petitioner sought disciplinary action against the officials concerned, it is observed that if the law so permits, the respondent No.2 shall examine the petitioner's representation dated

18.08.2025 and take appropriate action in accordance with law, within a reasonable time

7. This Court considering that the case is already the subject matter of civil adjudication, deems it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, \,rdth the above observations.

8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shail be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. ' //TRUE COPYII SD/. S T. SRINIVASA RED REG / SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri Y. Shashidhar Reddy, Advocate 2. Two ccs to 9i_for Revenue, High court for the State of relangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Pradeep Reddy, SCIOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies L* <r ! a HIGH COURT DATED :1311112025 ORDETI WP.No.34415 of 2025 THE S c Lr. C) 1B l{AR 7n?( * J * DISMIS}SING THE WRIT PETITION WITHC)UT COSTS CnA^*A t t/r ab ur\*m