Disposed

Sri Pathi Prakasam.S/o Kalaiah, v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC18 Nov 2013WP/20470/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a notice to remove unauthorized construction, the Court held it was inappropriate to decide the violation issue due to pending contempt proceedings. The Court upheld an interim order restraining further construction and demolition, disposing of the main petition and related matters as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed subject to existing interim order; related writ petitions disposed as infructuous.

Sri Pathi Prakasam.S/o Kalaiah, Vs The Government of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.20470 of 2013

¶2

Dated 1 8 th November, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Sri Pathi Prakasam

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Government of A.P.rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Subba Rao

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri M.Ramachandra Rao Gurram for Sri G.Pedda Babu

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed assailing notice, dated 06.07.2013, of respondent No.4, whereby he has informed that the petitioner has raised construction in Survey No.17 of Annavarapadu contrary to the status quo order, dated 15.11.2008, in W.P.No.24069 of 2008, passed by this Court and that therefore, he shall remove the structure within seven days, failing which, respondent No.4 will get the same removed. The petitioner in W.P.No.24069 of 2008 filed C.C.No.465 of 2013 for allegedly violating the order, dated 15.11.2008, and that the same is pending before this Court.

¶14

Considering these facts, by order, dated 30.07.2013, this Court restrained respondent No.4 from demolishing the structure raised by the petitioner while restraining the petitioner from making further construction.

¶15

At the hearing, the learned counsel for both the parties submitted that as the learned Judge who was hearing the contempt case has been elevated as Chief Justice, the contempt case is not being posted before any other Court so far.

¶16

Inasmuch as the question as to whether the petitioner violated the order, dated 15.11.2008, is the subject matter of the contempt case, it is not appropriate to decide the said aspect in this writ petition. The parties have therefore to await the decision of this Court in the contempt case. Till adjudication of the contempt case, the order, dated 30.07.2013, passed in this writ petition shall govern the parties and they shall abide by the said order.

¶17

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.25103 & 25104 of 2013 and W.V.M.P.No.3361 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶19

18^th November, 2013 VGB

Sri Pathi Prakasam.S/o Kalaiah, v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pathi Prakasam.S/o Kalaiah, v. The Government of A.P.

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. Zaheera Begum Vs The State Government of A.P.

K. Venkat Rao Vs The Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Sri J.L.Narasimham, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Manda Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Tahasildar

S.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chintam Reddi Venkata Subbaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh