Allowed

Sri Yadavallivari Choultry, v. Tiyyagura Srinivasa Reddy

Telangana HC18 Jun 2009WA/801/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by a temple against an interim order directing it to auction leasehold rights afresh and permit a respondent to bid. The court permitted the appeal on the ground that the auction had already been conducted and possession was handed over to a third party who bid the highest, as the respondent had not participated.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the Writ Appeal. No order as to costs.

Sri Yadavallivari Choultry, Vs Tiyyagura Srinivasa Reddy — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO : 801 of 2009

¶7

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/02/2009 in WP NO : 12145 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.)

¶8

Between: Sri Yadavallivari Choultry, Rep. byits Manager, M.V. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Aged about 40 years, Kanteru Village, Takikonda Mandal, Guntur District.

.....

APPELLANT

AND

1 Tiyyagura Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, R/o. Kanteru Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. 2 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multizone - II, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Departtment, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.T.M.PRASAD

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SRIDHAR

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶18

Aggrieved by the order, dated 12.02.2009 made in WVMP No.2312 of 2008 in WPMP No. 15657 of 2008 in WP No. 12145 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge modifying the interim order dated 13.06.2008 to the effect of directing the appellant - temple to auction the leasehold rights in respect of item No.1 of the notification dated 04.06.2008 afresh permitting the first respondent – writ petitioner also to participate in the auction and if he happens to be the highest bidder, the leasehold right shall be granted in his favour, subject, in any event, to the result of the writ petition.

¶19

The first respondent herein filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the auction notice dated 14.6.2008 issued by the appellant herein for auction of leasehold rights of lands to an extent of Ac.10.36 cents in D.No.4, 5, 6 and 7 belonging to the appellant herein, on the ground that he was cultivating the land to an extent of Ac.3.21 cents in Sy. No. 6 and paying makhta regularly, apart from owning dry land to an extent of Ac.1.12 cents. While so, the first respondent made application to the third

¶20

respondent to determine him as a landless poor, which was rejected by order dated 18.4.2003. Aggrieved thereby, he filed WP No. 13960 of 2003, which was disposed of with a direction to re-enquire into the matter. Again by order dated 9.1.2004, the third respondent rejected his application confirming the earlier order. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the first respondent filed Appeal No. 8 of 2004 before the first respondent and on 4.1.2006, his counsel did not attend the court, it was dismissed on merits. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent filed WP No. 5075 of 2006 which was allowed remitting the appeal to the first respondent for disposal afresh after notifying him of the date of hearing. While the appeal is pending, the auction notice was issued and the first respondent was taken aback inasmuch as his lands were also included in the said notification, without passing any order on the appeal preferred by him.

¶21

Initially, the learned Single Judge passed an order not to confirm the auction in respect of item No.1 giving liberty to the first respondent also to participate in the auction. Seeking to vacate this order, the appellant herein filed WVMP No. 2312 of 2008 and the learned Single Judge passed the order, dated 12.2.2009 which is impugned in the present Writ Appeal.

¶22

When the Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

¶23

auction had already been conducted but the first respondent has not participated in the auction, though permitted by the learned Single Judge. In the facts and circumstance of the case, while recording the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the auction, possession of the land had already been handed over to the third party (highest bidder) and as the first respondent has not participated in the auction, we allow the Writ Appeal. No order as to costs.

¶24

____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari

¶25

__________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar

¶26

June 18, 2009 MAS.

Sri Yadavallivari Choultry, v. Tiyyagura Srinivasa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yadavallivari Choultry, v. Tiyyagura Srinivasa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Narasamma Vs M.A. Hafeez

The Divisional Manager, Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,rep.by its Vs The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial

Parimi Surya Rao Vs The Prl.Secretary to the Govt

Nalla Satyanarayana, Vs G. Appala Naidu

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs P. Srinivas