Dismissed

Gulam Mohamood S/o Gulam Dastigir, v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue

Telangana HC18 Sept 2014WP/6326/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging issuance of proceedings for quarry lease in Reserved Forest land was dismissed as infructuous since the landfall application for lease was withdrawn by the applicants upon the government's decision not to grant the lease due to statutory restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Gulam Mohamood S/o Gulam Dastigir, Vs Mandal Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 6326 OF 2004

¶3

DATED 18^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

Gulam Mohamood and ors

¶6

….Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

Mandal Revenue Officer, Khanapur Mandal, Warangal District and ors.

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 6326 OF 2004

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Writ Petition was filed challenging the action of the first respondent in issuing proceedings RC.No.B/2622/03, dated 28.10.2003. Under the aforesaid order, the Mandal Revenue Officer, first respondent addressed a letter to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, second respondent herein requesting to grant quarry lease to Respondents 6 to 9.

¶14

Now, the learned Government Pleader based on the written instructions submitted that M/s. PSR Granites represented by its proprietor Sri P.Sridhar made applications on 19.08.2003 for grant of quarry lease in Sy.No.1/1 of Pocharam village, Khanapur Mandal, Warangal district for a period of 20

¶15

years. Since the said land falls under the Reserve Forest Block, Khanapur-1 notified under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and Pakhal Wild Life Sanctuary declared under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the official respondents decided not to grant quarry lease and pursuant to the same, the unofficial respondents have withdrawn the applications for grant of quarry lease.

¶16

In view of the same, the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader submitted that nothing remains for adjudication in the Writ Petition and the same may be dismissed as infructuous.

¶17

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶19

--------------------------------------------------JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶20

DATED 18^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. Msnro

Gulam Mohamood S/o Gulam Dastigir, v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Mohamood S/o Gulam Dastigir, v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Samand Khan Vs MunicipalCorporation of Hyderabad, rep.by its

Devineni Radha Rani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Ramapullam Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

N. Farid Basha Vs The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary

Tangudu Makayya Vs The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies Wing)

M/s. Siddartha Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary