Disposed

R. Kothapalle Gram Panchayat Bethamcherla Mandal, v. The Government of a.P,. rep by Principal Secretary

Telangana HC27 Apr 2016WA/991/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and Justice P. Naveen Rao disposed of Writ Appeal No. 991 of 2008 by confirming the operative pending interim suspension of a 2003 notification and expediting the hearing of the underlying writ petition without considering its merits.

What did the court decide?

The interim order of suspension remains operative pending disposal of the writ petition; hearing of the writ petition is expedited.

R. Kothapalle Gram Panchayat… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No. 991 OF 2008

¶5

27-04-2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

R. Kothapalli Gram Panchayat, Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District, rep., by its Upa Sarpanch K. Muneswarareddy, S/o. K. Munireddy aged 33 years

¶8

… Appellants

¶9

And

¶10

The Govt. of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, (Pts. IV) Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶13

WRIT APPEAL No. 991 OF 2008

¶14

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

¶17

16-07-2007 passed in WPMP No. 18755 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 14893 of 2007. The concluding paragraph of the impugned order reads thus:

¶18

“If ultimately petitioner succeeds in the Writ petition, revenue generated by the lands which allegedly ought not to have gone to the Jurisdiction of the third respondent, third respondent will be liable to refund those amounts to the petitioner Gram Panchayat.”

¶19

This Court while admitting the appeal on 16-09-2008 granted interim suspension of the notification dated 25-03-2003 impugned in the writ petition during the pendency of the appeal. The order of suspension granted in September, 2008 operates till today.

¶20

In view thereof, we find no reason to keep this appeal pending further and we dispose of the appeal by the following order:

¶21

“The interim order dated 16-09-2008 passed in WAMP No.2013 of 2008 in the writ appeal shall remain operative till the disposal of the writ petition. Hearing of the writ petition is expedited.”

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶24

________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 27-04-2016 ks

R. Kothapalle Gram Panchayat Bethamcherla Mandal, v. The Government of a.P,. rep by Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Kothapalle Gram Panchayat Bethamcherla Mandal, v. The Government of a.P,. rep by Principal 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

Ganisetti Shanmukheswara Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Hyderabad Urban Develoment Authority Vs N. Sreenu S/o Chinna Narsimha

The Land Acquisition Officer and Spl. Dy. Collector Vs Sri v. Swamy Reddy

Ramanapudi Kameswara Rao S/o Veerraju Vs The State of A.P. rep by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Sriman chemicals Pvt. Ltd(NLG322) Vs A.P Electricity Regulatory Commission

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Electronic Corporation of India Ltd.