Allowed

Ketupalli Rambabu v. The District Collector

Telangana HC6 Nov 2012WA/1296/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed an appeal against a single judge's observation in a writ petition dispute. The court held that the observation merely commented on the parties' conduct and shall not influence the independent adjudication of the pending civil suit by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Observation held not to influence the civil suit; single judge's order disposed as no costs.

Ketupalli Rambabu Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1296 OF 2012

¶4

DATED: 06.11.2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

Ketupalli Rambabu … Appellant

¶7

And

¶8

The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam and others … Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1296 OF 2012

¶12

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in W.P.No.24305 of 2012, dated 09.08.2012.

¶14

The appellant filed the above writ petition questioning the action of the 3^rd respondent in passing orders dated 31.7.2012 and directing the 4^th respondent to take possession of the Plot Nos. 13 and 14 in Sy.No.31/B, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna district, and consequent action of the 4^th respondent in locking the premises without issuing any notice and without following the procedure laid down under law.

¶15

The Hon’ble single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has observed as follows:

¶16

“The 6^th respondent has placed before this court, the copy of the plaint filed in O.S.No.580 of 2008 by respondents 7 and 89. Once the petitioner got impleaded in that suit, respondents 7 and 8 withdrew the same. Now they appear to have worked out a different method by pressing the petitioner into service and got a suit filed against themselves. Taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner from Vijayawada, respondents 7 and 8 are trying every possible step to gain control over the land.”

¶17

Being aggrieved with the said observation in the impugned order, the appellant filed this appeal.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record.

¶19

It is submitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Civil Court, while disposing of the matter pending before it, may be influenced by the observations made by His Lordship in the impugned order. Hence, he seeks appropriate directions.

¶20

In our opinion, the order passed by Hon’ble single Judge is only making a comment, and according to us, the said comment or the observation shall not stand in the way of deciding the civil suit pending before the trial court, and the trial Court shall decide the matter, without being influenced by the observations made by the Hon’ble single Judge in the impugned order.

¶21

With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶23

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 06.11.2012

¶24

bnr/kv

¶25

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶27

W.A. NO.1296 OF 2012

¶28

___________________________________________________ (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶29

06 .11.2012

Ketupalli Rambabu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ketupalli Rambabu v. The District Collector

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

Dr. P.V. Ramana Rao, Vs The Vice-Chancellor

Safdar Mirza Vs The Govt. of A.P Rept. by its Prl. Secretary

Kandadai Srinivasa Govinda Kumar S/o Kandadai Srirama Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by

Bantumilli Subba Rao Vs The Mandal Revenue officer,Dwaraka Thirumala

G. Sai Reddy, Vs The Principal Secretary

Damarla China Venkateswarlu, Vs State Bank of India, Tenali Bazar (Sme) Branch