Dismissed

Bande Siva Sankara Srinivasa Satya Sai Prasad v. Saripella Srinivasa Raju

Telangana HC16 Nov 2012WA/1416/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram declared the writ appeals filed against a common order of the Single Judge not maintainable. The court held it was legally impossible to bifurcate the common order to deal with the appeals independently, as the impugned portion arose from a composite proceeding. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of without any interference or costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bande Siva Sankara Srinivasa Satya Sai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

Writ Appeal Nos. 625 of 2011 and 1416 of 2012

¶5

DATED:16.11.2012

¶6

Between: Bande Siva Saankara Srinivasa Satya Sai Prasad

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

And

¶9

Saripella Srinivasa Raju and others.

¶10

…. Respondents

¶11

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶12

Writ Appeal Nos. 625 of 2011 and 1416 of 2012

¶13

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

¶14

These two appeals are directed against the order dated 25.2.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 3455 of 2006 and 18998 of 2008.

¶15

The aforementioned writ petitions are filed by the unofficial respondents herein, assailing the order dated 3.2.2006 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District and the notice dated 2.2.2006 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in relation to L.C.C. No. 1684/K/75, dated 2.2.2006 on the file of the Court of the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada as illegal and void. A consequential direction was also sought to direct the respondent-authorities to desist from taking action against the writ petitioners.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, the Hon’ble Single Judge disposed of the aforementioned writ petitions along with C.R.P. No. 710 of 2006 by

¶17

a common order dated 25.2.2011. By the said order, the Hon’ble Single judge while setting aside the orders impugned therein, remitted the matter back to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada for fresh enquiry after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. The Hon’ble Single Judge further directed the Tribunal to redeliver possession of the lands in question to the unofficial respondents/writ petitioners within a period of six months from that date.

¶18

The appellant filed these appeals being aggrieved by that part of the order through which the Hon’ble Single Judge directed the Tribunal to redeliver possession to the unofficial respondents/writ petitioners. However, the appellant did not file any appeal against the order passed in C.R.P. No. 710 of 2006.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aggrieved only by that part of the order passed in the writ petitions, impugned in these writ appeals and he has no grievance against the order passed in C.R.P. No. 710 of 2006.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, we are of the view that it is not possible for this Court to bifurcate the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, which is a common order, which is said to have been passed in the writ petitions and C.R.P. No. 710 of 2006 and deal with the appeals independently, which are filed against the order passed in writ petitions.

¶21

Therefore, in our opinion, we cannot pass any order on these appeals. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge and dispose of these appeals as not maintainable. No costs.

¶22

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶23

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 16-11-2012

¶24

pnb

Bande Siva Sankara Srinivasa Satya Sai Prasad v. Saripella Srinivasa Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bande Siva Sankara Srinivasa Satya Sai Prasad v. Saripella Srinivasa Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padarthi Siva Balasubba Rao Vs Dr. M Ravindranath Reddy

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Vs Jakkula Shanker

Juvva Prabhakara Rao S/o.Juvva Kondala Rao, Vs State Bank of India

M. Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and I.G. of Registration and Stamps

Bande Siva Sankara Srinivasa Satya Sai Prasad Vs Immaneni Venkata Subba Rao

M/s Radhika Rice Industries, Vs State Bank of India