High Court for State of TelanganaWP/19453/2017disposed of no costs

K. Narasimha Reddy v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

2017-06-15Raja Elango2 pages

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.19453 of 2017 ORDER:

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition by invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not taking action for protecting the valuable land of an extent of 5,012.70 square yards, in sy.No.68/ 1 to 7, situated at Indira Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, particularly shown in the layout plan, belong to Lord Sri Rama Sahitha Satyanarayana Swamy temple from the hands of the respondents 6 and 7 and the culprits involved in it, even though the petitioner submitted detailed complaints on 17.01.2017 and on 11.05.2017, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondents 2 to 5 to take necessary action for protecting the valuable land.

Heard and perused the material available on record. The case of the petitioner is that his father and other villagers formed into a committee and endowed a vast extent of 7,150 square yards of land and constructed Lord Sri Rama sahitha Satyanarayana Swamy Temple at Indira Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, and thereafter, the father of the petitioner and the respondents 6 and 7 were declared as founder trustees. Since the father of the petitioner was bedridden, the respondents 6 and 7 hatched a plan to knock away the valuable land of temple admeasuring 5,012.70 square yards and the 6th respondent claiming himself as a GPA holder of the land, trying to change the plan as well as the details of the land and is in possession of the said land wrongfully. The main contention of the petitioner is that though he filed complaints on 17.01.2017 and 11.05.2017 to the respondents 2 to 5 with regard to the mismanagement of the

respondents 6 and 7, no action has been taken so far by the respondents 2 to 5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the grievance of the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: The respondents 2 to 5 are directed to consider the complaints, dated 17.01.2017 and 11.05.2017, made by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________ RAJA ELANGO, J June 15, 2017.

KTL