logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 333 print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 16655 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Parties : Mydagoni Venkatesham Versus The State of Telangana & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Ramakotaiah Kandala, Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev.
Date of Judgment : 14-05-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

               “……to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents No.4 to 6 in laying a road in the immovable property in Sy.No.273/A, admeasuring 242 square yards equivalent to 202.34 square meters situated at Elanthakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District the properties North: Side 18 GP Road, South Open place of others, East: Hospital Road, West: Oil Mill No.2-77/2, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice, and as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.4 to 6 not to interfere/dispossess the petitioner from her above said house site and ….”

2. Heard Mr. Rama Kotaiah Kandala, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos.1 & 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.2 and Mr. K. Pratap Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 and perused the material on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claiming to be the absolute owner and possessor of 242 square yards, equivalent to 202.34 square meters, in Sy.No.273/A, situated at Elanthakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while the petitioner was away in Maharashtra in connection with his private employment, respondent Nos.4 to 6, at the instance of local influential persons, attempted to lay a road through the petitioner’s land without issuing any notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that on 09.05.2026, the respondents visited the subject land and threatened the petitioner with dispossession.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5-Elanthakunta Gram Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, has produced the Telugu written instructions dated 13.05.2026 stating that there is no proposal to lay any road much less through Survey No.273/A as stated by the petitioner and the same is placed on record.

6. Recording the said statement of the learned Standing Counsel that there is no proposal of laying road through private land, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

 
  CDJLawJournal