Dismissed

J. Arvind Kumar, v. The Cantonment Board

Telangana HC24 Dec 2013WP/34785/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order dismissing multiple writ petitions filed against the Secunderabad Cantonment Board which were withdrawn by the petitioners as they were allowed to pursue an existing civil suit (O.S. No.30 of 2005) for relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted to petitioners to prosecute O.S.No.30 of 2005 for further reliefs. No costs.

J. Arvind Kumar, Vs The Cantonment Board — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.34343, 34785, 34828, 34831, 34832, 34842, 35027, 35032, 35052, 35055 and 35155 of 2013

¶2

Date: 24.12.2013

¶3

W.P.No.34343 of 2013

¶4

Between : D.Durga Reddy s/o. D.Malla Reddy, Aged about 54 yrs, R/o.Plot Nos. 14 & 15, Vanitha Cooperative Housing Colony, Bhavana Enclave, Bowenpally, Secunderabad and another … Petitioners

¶5

and The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

W.P.No.34785 of 2013 Between : J.Arvind Kumar … Petitioner and The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

W.P.No.34828 of 2013

¶10

Between : Dr. D.Ramakrishna Reddy and two others … Petitioners and The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

W.P.No.34831 of 2013

¶13

Between : N.Surekha and three others … Petitioners and The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer

¶14

… Respondent W.P.No.34832 of 2013 Between : N.Eeshan Reddy and two others … Petitioners and The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer

¶15

… Respondent

¶16

W.P.No.34842 of 2013
Between :
M.Nagi Reddy and three others and	… Petitioners
The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer	… Respondent
W.P.No.35027 of 2013
Between :
S.Narasimha Reddy and four others and	… Petitioners
The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer	… Respondent
W.P.No.35032 of 2013
Between :
K.Thirupathi Reddy and four others and	… Petitioners
The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer	… Respondent
W.P.No.35052 of 2013
Between :
K.Narender s/o. late K.S.N.Rao and	… Petitioner
The Secunderabad Cantonment Board,
S.P.Road, Court Compound,
Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer	… Respondent
W.P.No.35055 of 2013
Between :
D.Madhava Rao and another and	… Petitioners
The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound,
Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer	… Respondent
W.P.No.35155 of 2013
Between :
Sri Padam Kumar Jain and three others and	… Petitioners
The Cantonment Board, S.P.Road, Court Compound,
Secunderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer

¶17

and another

¶18

… Respondents

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION Nos.34343, 34785, 34828, 34831, 34832, 34842, 35027, 35032, 35052, 35055 and 35155 of 2013

¶22

COMMON ORDER:

¶23

These writ petitions are filed on the apprehension that the respondent–board is taking steps to demolish the property without following due process of law. When the matters are taken up, learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the society to which petitioners are members earlier instituted O.S.No.30 of 2005 on the same subject matter and on 03.12.2013, the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act cum VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, passed orders in I.A.No.897 of 2005, granting injunction in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the suit property. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions with a liberty to the petitioners to prosecute O.S.No.30 of 2005 and also to take appropriate steps in it regarding further reliefs to which petitioners are entitled to.

¶24

Recording the said submission, these writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶26

____________________________ JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶27

Date: 24.12.2013 kkm

¶28

Oval: 

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION Nos.34343, 34785, 34828, 34831, 34832, 34842, 35027, 35032, 35052, 35055 and 35155 of 2013

¶31

Date: 24-12-2013

¶32

kkm

J. Arvind Kumar, v. The Cantonment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Arvind Kumar, v. The Cantonment Board

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

K Narsimha Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Kyatham Ramulu, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer/

Paila Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal

Sri K.Narender, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Madiga Gangappa Vs The Government of Ap

V.Rajendran, S/o Vadivelu PiIlai, Vs The District Collector (Land Acquisition), Chittoor