Dismissed

Thota Sobhanadri v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC7 Jul 2009WP/13420/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner voluntarily withdrew. The court recorded the submission that the petitioner did not wish to pursue the petition to present documents for registration. No order as to costs was passed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to present documents for registration. No order as to costs.

Thota Sobhanadri Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13420 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

Thota Sobhanadri S/o. Sri Ramaiah R/o. Nuzvid, Krishna District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Registrar's Office, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 3 The Special Grade Dy. Registrar / Officer on Special Duty, Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

¶10

4 Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank, Nuzvid Branch, Krishna District, rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register documents pertaining to Sy.No.45/3 & 45/4 owned by the petitioner in Sunkollu Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District, on the ground that the Attachment Order in EPNo.6991/OSD/2002-03 is in force, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further direct the 2nd respondent to entertain registration and pass

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

ORAL ORDER:

¶17

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to pursue the writ petition with a view to present the document for registration to the 2^nd respondent. Recording the submission, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to do so. No order as to costs.

¶18

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 7.7.2009.

¶19

KRB.

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶21

WRIT PETITION No. 13420 of 2009.

¶22

Dated: 7.7.2009.

Thota Sobhanadri v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Sobhanadri v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dokka Syamsunder Singh Vs The STate of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Ambakam Selvam Vs The District Collector

G. Ramakrishna S/o Late G. Narayanappa Vs TheCommissioner of Land Revenue

Suda Rama Bhadra Purushottam Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sivalikam Bala Krishnaiah Vs The District Collector Nellore

V.V. Rajendsra Prasad Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District