Malkajgiri Bangari Raju @ Bangari Raju 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in not considering and not disposing the Representation dated 27-11-2025 filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia, Consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 76 to an extent of 890 Square Yards, situated 3t Thokatta Village, Tirumalagiri lr4andal, New Bowenpall r, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District by issuing Patta in the name of petitior<' in respect of the above said land by following procedure. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c I )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour nay be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the Re rresentation dated 27-11-2025 filed by the petitioner, pending disposal of the mai writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAGHU MANNEP,A _Ll Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI L.RAVINDER, ACil FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI K.R.KOTESWARA Rl\( ), SC FOR SCB The Court made the following: ORDER //j IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL TYRIT PFTITION No.38177 of 2o25 Date:1L.12.2O25 Between: Malkajgiri Bangari Raju @ Bangari Raju And Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. b_v its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr.B. R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Kairtabad, Hyderabad Telangana State and four others ORDER: Respondents This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court lo declare the action of respondent No.2 in not consiciering and disposing o[ the rcpresentation, dated 27.I1.2025 filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbilrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, 2! and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently,. direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land admeasuring 890 square yards situated in Sy.No.76 of Thokatta Villagc, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Ne'.,r Bowenpally, Secunderabad and 2 t\'\r. J \\'p lSlir l0l5 to issue patta in the name of the petitioner ernd for other ;rppropriate rclie fs

2. Heard Sri V.R.Mannepalli, learned courlsel i r the: petrtioner, Sri L.Ravinrlcr, learned Assistant Government ple:1cr for Revenuc appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri KF: lott:swara Rao, lcarned Standing Counsel appearing for responde I No_5 and with lheir consent, this u'rit petition is being taken u; 1br disposal at the admrssion s tagc.

3. Learned r:ounsel lor the petitioner would ; tbmit that thc petitioner's qrarrdfather, b_y name Malkajgiri [_i rgamaiah, u.as declared as Lzrnd Grabbcr in L.G.C.No.79 of 199 I I r the hle of the Special Corrrr under A.p.Land Grabbing (prol iritior-r) Act at Hvderabad uide order, clated 10.09.1993 anc directed the grandfather ol the petitioner and one other to Ccliver vacant possession ol'the land situated in Sy.Nos.76 and,l , after removing thc construcr ions therein to the Government withrr I period of two months from thc date o[ receipt of a copy of the sa r orcler. In the said L.G.C.. Iibertv rvas also granted to . :onsrder the representations of respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein r anr,, pending belore the (;ovcrnment. Learned counsel would I rrther submit that, for not considering thc rcpresentation, dated -l ..10.192E, the 1 3 EVV. J \\'p i8177 2025 petitioner filed W.P.No.402O of 2020 beforc this Court. By an order, dated 04 .O3 .2025, this Court disposed of the said r.r'rit pelition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief as per his rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, in the interregnum period, the petitioner has made a representation, dated 27 .17.2025 to respondent No.2 without availing the opportunity granted by this Court in the earlier round of Iitigation ie., in W.P.No.4O2O of 2O2O. The petitioner's main grievance is that respondent No. 2 has neither accepted nor rejected his represcntation. Despite acknowledging receipt of the said rcpresentation, respondent No.2 has failed to respond on the same and instead, kept the matter 1n abeyance. Learned counsel for thc pe titioner further submits that the petitioner's right to submit a representation should not be curtailed, especially when he r,r'as granted liberty to approach the civil Court. Therefore, he prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.

4. The Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on thc other hand, submits that the petitioner's re presentatio ns, dated 13.03.202 I and 30.O8.2021 requesting issuance of C)ccupanc,y Rights Certificate, were rejected by respondent No. 3 4 E\A'..I \\'p i3177 1015 uide Lr. No. B/ t3O6l2O2O dated 01.05.202 I rnd 29.O1.2022, rcspectivelv. Hc: lurtht-'r submits that the petitior., W.P. No. -iO20 oi 202O, u,hich u,as disposed r r previousll'filed ' on O4.O3.2O25 granting liberw to approach competent civil r_ )url. Instead of availing that libcrty, the petitioner sub.l rtted a representation to rcspondent No.2 and filed r re present rvrit petition alleging that the rcpresentation has not rr:en considered. He further contends that Section 156 of th,_. 'elangana Land Revenue Acl, l3 1 7 Fasli , empo\\.e rs authorities to ( n ter any land or premises, rr.hcthcr (lovernment owned o; othenvise, lor measuremcnl, boun(lirn marking, soil classifie r . )n, zrssessment, or other duties. Thereforc, the respondent authont es have larvfully taken possession o[ Lhe subject land asserting tir Lt issuance of a prior notice is not mandatorv.

5. Sri K. R. Kote sr.r'ara Rao, learned Standing C I tnsr:l appearing for respondent No.5, urtuld submit that the pel.itt: ter has made a representation, dated 16.1O.2024 for tax assessjrr:nt, rvhich rvas received by the off rce o[ respondent No.5 uide Inrr,.:-d No.7125 and after perusing thc said represe ntation, respon: rnt No.S, ujde Lr.No.SCB/TS/W-VI/Assessmentl UAC/2583, ctr r :d 16. 12.2024, inlormed to the petitioner that he is claiming t- I os.nership of -7t f EVV. J Wp 3E 177 1025 subject Iand by way of Court Order and thcrefore, he is required to get a clari fication / record from the District Collectoratc, Hyderabad, rcgarding os,nership of the subject land under managemenl of the State Government so as to process his application for assessment of tax- Learned Standing Counsel would submit that, unless the petitioner establishes his title, his application for assessment of tax cannot be considered.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made b1' the Iearncd counsel lor the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5. A perusal of the material on record u'ould rcveal that the petitioner has been making constant efforts by repearedll' liling n'rit petitions before this Court. The petitioner's case is that thc respondent authorities have failed to consider the rcpresentation, rvhich was originally made by his grandfather, who n,as declarcd as a land grabber by order, dated 10 09 1993 in L.G.C- No. 79 of 1991. Relying on the order passed in that case, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking grant of a patta in his favour, u'hich forms the basis of this writ petition' I Admittedly, the orcler dated 10.09.1993 passed in L.G.C. No' 79 of 199 I is not placed before this Court. Since thc entirc dispute Y*1 \ - a' 6 I:W.J \t'p 3S 177 1025 revolves arollnd the procccdings and observatio- ; of the Spe cial Court under the A-P, Lancl Grabbing (Pror bition) Act at Hyderabad, il is inappropriate lor Lhis Court to rlt )rd any findings in the absence ol that order. Accordingly, thi:, Cor,irt is of the opinion that the rvrit petition is clevoid of meril .rr d is liable to be dismissed. Hou,ever, it remains open for the petitio Lcr to submit an independent reprcsentatiolt seeking a patta as L [andlcss poor person. If such a reprcsentation is made, anrl I the petitioner qualifies as landless poor arnd lulfills the rc<1rr re ments of the relevant circulars and Ciot.crnment Orders, he respondent authorities shall consicler thc said representati( r in accordance $.ith the 1a\ '.

7. Accordingl_1., this Wrir Pctirion is dismissed There sl-rall be no order as to costs.

8. As a sequel, the misccllaneous petitions 1:nding, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/:Ll.siJDHA ' ASI; STANT BEGISTRAR SECTITTN OFFICER To, 1 2 One CC to SRI VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI, Advc ;ate [OPUC] One CC to SRI K.R.KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR SCB )PUCI Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the I tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 Two CD Copies BSR PMK 6 HIGH COURT DATED: 1111212025 ORDER WP.No.38177 of 2025 $o(, 'tC i 1,,{ * ..., 0 I r Jl0 '.:,rt' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .)d- AJ o\