Disposed

P. Anil Kumar, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Nov 2012WA/1373/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal challenging a single Judge's order vacating an interim stay and a separate writ petition against a No Objection Certificate. The court disposed of both proceedings with the consent of counsel, noting the NOC concerned distinct survey numbers from those claimed by the appellants.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition as well as the writ appeal shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

P. Anil Kumar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.1373 of 2012

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

P. Anil Kumar and others.

¶8

…APPELLANTS

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶11

…RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Appellants: MR. C. HANUMANTHA RAO

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. C. DAMODAR REDY MR. HARINDER PRASAD MR. D. DAMODAR REDDY MR. R. RADHA KRISHNA REDDY

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

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

¶16

This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in WVMP.No.3437 of 2012 in WPMP.No.33343 of 2012 in

¶17

WP.No.26169 of 2012 dated 15.10.2012.

¶18

2. By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge vacated the interim order granted in favour of the appellants/writ petitioners on finding that in spite of filing of vacate stay petition, the appellants were not ready and were putting one lame excuse or the other and thereby, the learned single Judge has vacated the interim order dated 24.08.2012.

¶19

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the writ petition also and the same is being disposed of as per their consent.

¶20

4. Writ petitioners have questioned the no objection certificate granted by the Joint Collector in favour of the contesting respondents herein dated 09.09.2012. The said NOC was sought for by the contesting respondents with regard to premises No.13-6-439/C/4, Satyanarayana Nagar Colony, Gudimalkapur by stating that the said premises falls in Sy.No.135/1 of Gudimalkapur village. Admittedly, the appellants/writ petitioners claim their property as located in Sy.No.135/2 of Gudimalkapur village. Apprehending that the said NOC affects the rights of the appellants/writ petitioners with regard to the property claimed by them, the present writ petition was filed.

¶21

5. Since the learned counsel for contesting respondents 11 and 12 appearing before us state that their title is only with regard to property in Sy.No.135/1, the said NOC is confined to the said property and is not, in any way, concerned with the property claimed by the appellants/writ petitioners located in Sy.No.135/2.

¶22

6. In view of the said categorical statement of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, as above, the apprehension of the appellants/writ petitioners expressed in the writ petition does not survive.

¶23

Recording the aforesaid submission, the writ petition as well as the writ appeal shall stand disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications,

¶24

if any, shall stand closed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

_________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶26

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶27

November 8, 2012 DSK

P. Anil Kumar, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Anil Kumar, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Smt. S. Ratnabai, Vs B. Gopal Reddy

Priyadarsini Dalita Samkshema Sangham, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Vempati Peda Venkateswarlu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M/s. Snigdha Plastic Industries, Vs Canara Bank

Majeti Lakshmi Narasamma, W/o. Siva Vara Koti Prasad Vs The Zonal Manager

Smt.Sodagudi Mary Deevena W/o.John Vara Prasad, Vs The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank