High Court for State of TelanganaWP/36178/2015disposed of no costs

G. Ananthaiah v. The State Of Telangana,

2015-11-17C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.36178 of 2015 Dated 17th November, 2015 Between:

G.Ananthaiah

...Petitioner

And The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Minority & Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.L.Pandu for Sri Jagdish Kothapally Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Social Welfare (TS) Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Revenue (TS) Counsel for respondent No.4: AGP for Panchayat Raj (TS) Counsel for respondent No.5: AGP for Home (TS) The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seeking to interfere with the petitioner's possession of 252 sq.yards of land forming part of premises bearing No.1-15 (old No.1-17) of Antharam Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the property in his possession is his ancestral property and that about five days prior to filing of the writ petition, the staff of respondent No.2 came to his house with a poclainer and threatened to demolish the compound wall with an intention to dispossess him and occupy the open land of about 162 sq.yards.

On 05.11.2015, the learned counsel representing Sri Mirza Safiulla Baigh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that papers were not served on him. Therefore, the case was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve papers. Today, at the hearing, Sri D.L.Pandu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the papers were served on the learned Standing Counsel. However, no one appeared for respondent No.2. Having regard to the innocuous grievance of the petitioner that the officials of respondent No.2 are interfering with his possession and trying to dispossess him without notice and following due process of law, respondent No.2 and its officials are restrained from dispossessing the petitioner without initiating appropriate proceedings under the extant provisions of law. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.46527 of 2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th November, 2015 VGB