G. Srinivasa Rao v. The State Of Telangana And 4 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Date: 8.7.2019 Between:

G.Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

.. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Respondents and perused material available on record. 2.

Petitioner claims to be owner of land admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas in Survey No.1 of Solipur village, Farooq Nagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district. According to petitioner, one Mr.Alwal Reddy was the owner and pattadar of total land admeasuring Ac.5-24 guntas in Sy.No.1 of Solipur village and out of the same, Ac.3-10 guntas was acquired by Government, Ac.2-00 was sold to one Mangali Pentaiah, an extent of 0.04 guntas (450 sq.yards) was gifted in favour of Panchayat Samithi for construction of school building and the remaining extent of Ac.0-10 guntas was purchased by the petitioner vide document No.10875/07. 3.

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject property is a private property and at the instance of local muslim leaders, attempts are being made to grab the subject land for construction of Masjid and the same is illegal. 4.

However, petitioner in his representation dated 15.5.2019 addressed to Municipal Chairman, Shadnagar, complains that some unknown persons have laid pillars for laying compound wall without his knowledge. The said representation clearly points out that the grievance of the petitioner is not against revenue authorities, but against some private persons. Paragraph 7 of the affidavit also points out that the petitioner has grievance against third parties. 5.

On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Municipality submits that the Municipality is not interfering with the

property of the petitioner. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available under law against private persons for their alleged interference. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 8.7.2019 DA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO 8.7.2019 DA