Disposed

Gonepally Anjaneyulu, v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC4 Nov 2013WP/9713/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the writ petition for mandamus regarding a plat regularization order. The court held that since a civil suit on the same land was pending, the petitioner should seek reliefs via amendment and impleadment in that suit rather than adjudication on merits in the writ.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to seek appropriate relief in the pending civil suit via amendment and impleadment. Associated W.P.M.P.Nos. 12100 and 38623 of 2013 stood disposed of as infructuous.

Gonepally Anjaneyulu, Vs State of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9713 of 2013

¶2

Date: 04.11.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Gonepally Anjaneyulu

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

and

¶7

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

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Peri Prabhakar

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for

¶11

Revenue

¶12

Counsel for respondent No.3: --

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare G.O.Ms.No.1518, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 10.12.2007, in respect of entry No.21 to the Annexure thereto and the consequent endorsement pursuant to application No.F1/455/2555/05 in C.C.No.F1/2917/76, dated 01.02.2008, as vitiated by fraud.

¶15

At the hearing, Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that his client has filed O.S.No.520 of 2009 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against respondent No.3 on the allegation that some third party in collusion with respondent No.3 has impersonated the petitioner and secured the impugned G.O. seeking regularization of plot No.220 admeasuring 500 sq. yards in survey Nos.33, 34/P, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal.

¶16

In my opinion, when a civil suit is already pending in respect of the same land, which is the subject matter of G.O.Ms.No.1518, dated 10.12.2007, it is appropriate that the petitioner questions the said G.O. by seeking amendment of the prayer in the suit and impleading the State and its functionaries responsible for issuing the G.O.

¶17

In the above view of the matter, while declining to adjudicate the Writ Petition on merits, the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the pending suit.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.12100 and 38623 of 2013 filed by the petitioner shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶20

04^th November, 2013 GHN

Gonepally Anjaneyulu, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gonepally Anjaneyulu, v. State 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

Chava Srirami Reddy Vs The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate

Rapolu Venugopal Rao, S/o. Venkatarajaiah Vs The State of A.P.

B.Poornachandra Reddy Vs TheDistrict Collector ANDMagistrate

N.Venakta Ramana Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mukkamalla Venkateshwara Reddy, Vs The District Collector

The District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Adilabad Vs The District Collector