Dismissed

Bapujinagar Residents Welfare Association v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Dec 2005WP/908/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order permitting land exchange was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner's object was achieved by a subsequent High Court order and Commissioner endorsement restoring possession to the private land owner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous as the petitioner's object has been achieved by subsequent orders restoring possession.

Bapujinagar Residents Welfare Association Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No. 908 OF 2003

¶3

9th December, 2005

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bapujinagar Resident Welfare Association,

¶6

Rep. by its Preident Sri Y.Raja Rama Mohana Rao

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

A N D

¶9

1. The Government of A.P. rep. by the Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminitration, And Urban Development Department,

¶10

Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others

¶11

….Respondents

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶13

W.P.No. 908 OF 2003

¶14

O R D E R :

¶15

1. This writ petition has been filed by Bapujinagar Residents Welfare Association, represented by its President Sri Y.Raja Rama Mohana Rao assailing the action of the respondents No. 1 to 3 in permitting the exchange of the open space i n layout plan No.64/81 with private land of the 4^th respondent through G.O.Rt.NO.1446 M.A., dated 3-12-2002.

¶16

2. Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submits that the land which has been delivered as exchange is restored to her and consequently she handed over the possession of the site which has been given to her on exchange. In nutshell the parties are put to their respective possession that was existing prior to G.O.Rt.No.1446 M.A. dated 3-12-2002. The endorsement of the Commissioner, dated 22-1-2005 read as follows:-

¶17

“Sub:Town Planning – Vijayawada Municipal CorporationCancellation of charge list regarding the handover of the site in R.S.No.194/1 admeasuring 225.50 sq.yds. from Smt. A.Ratna Kumari, W/o: Sri Alla Venkaiah, Bapujinagar for the link road – regarding.

¶18

Ref:1.Charge list dt. 10-8-1999.

¶19

2. W.P.M.P.No. 1168/2003 and W.V.M.P.No.1163 & 3553/2003 and W.P.No.908/2003 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of (A.P.) is dismissed dt. 26-8-2004.

¶20

3. Orders of the Municipal Commissioner

¶21

Dt. 25-10-2004.

¶22

In pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of (A.P.) Hyderabad in reference 2^nd cited and the orders of the Municipal Commissioner dt. 25-10-2004 in reference 3^rd cited it is to inform that the above list in the reference 1^st cited have been cancelled and the possession of site in R.S.No.194/1 of Patamata Admeasuring 225.50 sq.yds. is referred back to Smt. A.Ratna Kumari”.

¶23

3. A plain reading of above endorsement indicates that the purpose for which the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner has been achieved and thus nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.

¶24

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶25

Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

¶26

9^th December, 2005.

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶29

W.P.No. 908 OF 2003

¶30

9th December, 2005

Bapujinagar Residents Welfare Association v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapujinagar Residents Welfare Association v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akss Agencies and Distributors, Vs Andhra Bank, Malakpet Branch

Vontela Jagapathi Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Saladi Nagaratnam, Vs The District Collector

J.K.Ramesh, Vs Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

K. Parimala Reddy, Vs Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Sri Mohd. Ghouse S/o late Shaik Janimiya Vs The District Collector Ranga Reddy