Dismissed

Gundreddy Narayanamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary

Telangana HC22 Nov 2013WP/33519/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to declare respondent No.2's failure to consider an application for land documents illegal; petition later withdrawn with liberty to appeal, leading to dismissal of the petition and consequent disposal of related interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to appeal; W.P.M.P.No.41704 of 2013 disposed of as infructuous.

Gundreddy Narayanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary — Telangana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33519 of 2013

¶3

22.11.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Gundreddy Narayanamma and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Kasi Nageswar Rao

¶11

Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

0ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶15

“…….to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not considering the application submitted by the petitioners dt.5.7.2013 for issuance of issuing RoR and pattedar Pass book in favour of petitioners pertaining to the land admeasuring Ac.6.31 cents, Ac.6.32 cents and Ac.6.32 cents respectively in Sy.No.400/33 situated at Jaggaram Village, Ashwapuram Mandal, Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, direct respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioners and to pass such other order or orders……”

¶16

After arguing the case, Sri Kasi Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to his clients to file an appeal before respondent No.2 as indicated by this Court in the order dated 23.07.2013 in W.P.No.20016 of 2013 and work out their remedies in the event an appropriate decision is not taken by respondent No.2 on such appeal.

¶17

The request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made.

¶19

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41704 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

__________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶21

22^nd November, 2013

¶22

GHN

Gundreddy Narayanamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundreddy Narayanamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tekumatla Pullamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Namindla Jayapal, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rep by its Secretary Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Nune Rama Krishna,S/o.Pullaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gangavaram Matyakarula Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Krishna Kumari, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh