Pinni Srinivas v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-09. Pinni Srinivas v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PEAL NO: 146 oF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred 20. 01 . 2026 in W. P. No. 40082 of 2025 on the file of the High court. Between 1. Pinni Srinivas, S/o. Krishnaiah, Aged 56 years, Occ. Business, g-4lBt12lA, Siinivasa Colony, Suryapet Town and District. years,-. Occ. Business, 2. Godugu Suresh, S/o. Mallaiah, \Oeg . +2 Velugirpaly Village, Thungathurthy Mandal, Suryapet District. 3. Thallada Venkataramana, S/o Chandraiah, Aged 46 years, nyo. H. No. 5-15, Kandhag'atla Village, Athmakui (S) Mandal, Suryapet District AND 1 The State of Telanga oo, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Suryapet District, At Suryapet. 3. The Tahsildar, Suryapet Mandal, Suryapet District. ,The 4.
Commissioner lVlunicipality, suryapet Municipality, At Reddy, 5. Male Anasuryamma, wo Late MaLq Bgnga 4qg I? District. wife, Fl/o. Rayinigudem Pillalamarri Villagb, suryapet lA NO: 1 OF 2026 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances may be the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court i: suspend the operation of orders dated OOl12t2O25 in file No. E4l1 954t2025 and l -: j-; -i:1 -r' : -r the communication dated 1011212025 in file No. E4l195412025 pending disposal of Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D. Y. L. N. CHARYULU Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 3: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI P. KRISHNA REDDY, S. C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the, Respondent No. 5: SRI P. VINAY KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT . ,\ t; IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 'tHE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SIII APARESH KUMAR SINGTI AND THE HON'BLE SRT CE G. M.
MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No. 146 of 2026 Dated: 09. A2. 2026 Between: Pinni Srinivas and 2 others. ... Appellants and The State of Telangana, I{ep. by its Principal Secretary, llevenue [)epartment, Seoretariat, [{yderabad, and 4 others. ... Respondents JUDGMENT: Learned counsel Sri D. Y. N. L. N. Charyulu appears for the appellants Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Govemment Pleader for Revenue, appears for respondents No. l to 3. \ \ \ Learned counsel Sri Palreddy Vinay Kumar Reddy appears for rcspondent No. 5 2. fhe appellants approached thc learned writ court by frling W. P. No. 4C082 of 2025 rvith the follorving praver: "For the reasons stated in the accomparrl,ing affidavit. petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Couft nray be pleased to issue writ, or writs, order or orcers, direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MAN)AMUS declaring the orclcrs of tlre 2"d Respondent in proceedings No.
Ez / I 95412025 dated 06-12-2025 consequential a letter to the Respcndents 3 and 4 serrt by thc l{espoudent No. 2 through letter No. E:/195412025 dated l0-12-2025 instructirrg the Respondent No. 2 to keep . he land to an cxtent ol'Ac. [-0-l;. Guntas in Sy. No. 7i8 in which larrd t,elongins to Petitionel No. I to an c\tent of . ,\c. 0-07 Cuntas arrd the land bclorrgirrg to Petitioners 2 atrci .. 1 Lo an extcrrt o{'Ac. 0-0(r% Guntas each :;ituated at Pillalarnarri Village and also directing Respondent No. 3 to hold all constructiorrs in rcspect ol- the above said land u,ithout giving an ol)portunity by making Petitioners party is illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the orders in proceedings No. E4l195412025 dated 06-12-2025 and consequential letter No. Il4l I 954 12025 dated I 0- 12-2025 in re:;pect ol petitiorrer No. I land to alt extent of Ac. 0-07 Guntas in Sy. No. 738/A A2ll12 and the land belonging to Petitioner 2 to an extent of Ac. 0-06'/z Guntas in 51. No.
738iAA2ll12 and the land belonging to Petiticrrcr 3 to an extent of Ac. 0-061/. Guntas in Sy. No. 738lAA2ll12 situated at Pillalamarri Village and pass strch other order or orders as this Hon'ole Court nray deem fit and proper under circumstances of this case. '' 3. The writ petition has been disposed of on 20. 01. 2026 after hearing the appellant, State and respondent No. 5 in the following manner: I "8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and I I upon perusing the material available on record, without going into the I merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent iI rl authrtrities to grant an opportunity of hearing tothe petitioners and allthe ii concerned parties by putting them on notice and after conducting due l enquiry pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and :. -- . -. -. ?
-thereafter communicate copy of the said order to the petitioners. The parties to the writ petition shall maintain status quo in all respects tillthe respondent authority pass final orders. There shall be no orders as to costs. " 4. Being aggrieved, the appellants have prefbrred this appeal, inter alia, stating that the appellants have been affected by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 06. 12. 2025 passed without notice to them. Because of the status quo order now being granted by the learned *,rit court, the ongoing cclnstructions by the appellants have been aflected. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants subrnits that there is an injunction order in tavour of the appellants in O. S. No. l33 of 2025 vis-tr-vis third parties. Respondent No. 5 is an illegal claimant as possessor of the land.
Therefore, the direction passed by the learned writ court to rnaintain status quo while directing the official respondents to pass appropriate orders after notice and hearing the parties is, in f-act, affecting the vested rights of the appellants. 6. Learned counsel lor respondent No. 5 submits that resportdent / ( No. 5 was not made a party before the learned trial court where an interim injunction has been obtained. It is further submitted that the husband of respondent No. 5 was the one who had applied online in 1) Dharani portal. The dispute herein is in relation to the order dated 06. 12. 2025 whereby the District Collector, Suryapet, has directed rhat no transactions or rnutaLions shall be cntertained in respect ol'the subject -['hc land until further orders. order of the lcarned r. vrit court does not determine the rights of the parties. It has relegatcd the issue to rhe District Cr>llector, who is the competent authority.
Therefore, for the tirne being, the interests of both the partics arc not adversell, affected. 7. Lee. rned Covernment Pleadcr lor Revcnue appearing tbr respondents No. l to 3 submits that the impugned directions are innocuous in nature without af'fectin-e the right or intercst of either the appellants or respondent No. 5. Therefore, the appellants. if aggrieved by the or<[er passed by the District Collcctor purslrant to the irnpugned direction rf the learned rvrit court, rr,ill have thc rcmedy in appropriate proceedings. No case for interlbrence is required at this stage. 8.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into note the lelevant materials placed on record, we are of the view that in the naturt: of the dispute raised herein, the learned writ court has rightly refrained from entering into the merits of the case of the parties while relegating the matter to the District Collector, Suryapet, to take a decision on the rival pleas after due notice to both the parties within a : t T I I f $ I I period of 90 days. Till then status quo has been directed to be maintained in all respects. Since by the impugned direction no rights of either ol'the parties arc being af lected and the rival parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate fbnrm/court if aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, w'g do not finci any reason to interfere in the matter at this stage. 9. 'The instant appeal is accordingly disrnissecl. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous appli<;ations pending, if any, shall stand closed. V. S.
PRASAD REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII OFFICER To 1. One CC to SRI D. Y. L. N. CHARYULU, Advocate 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for th of Telangana at Hyderabad TOUTI 3. one cc to SRI P. KRISHNA REDDY, s. c. for Municiparities topucl 4. One CC to SRI VTNAY KUMAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies MP/BSK \qr HIGH COURT DATED:0ilA212026 lHE S c 2g f,:8 2021i )k * MENT WA. No. 146 of 2A26 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,{4 % trts
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.