Dismissed

Smt.Y.Amruthabai v. The Govt Of A.P

Telangana HC14 Nov 2016WP/7809/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge order dismisses a writ petition challenging the rejection of a request for land regularisation. The court held the petition infructuous as the substantive rights regarding the land's title could only be examined in a pending writ filed against a conflicting Land Grabbing Court order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, also dismissed.

Smt.Y.Amruthabai Vs The Govt Of A.P — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶3

Writ Petition No.7809 of 2008

¶4

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶5

The State Government preferred L.G.C.No.62 of 1998 before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad alleging that the land belongs them, and not to the petitioners. The Land Grabbing Court allowed the L.G.C, and held that the land belongs to the Government. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3320 of 2006 which is pending on the file of this Court. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in rejecting their request for regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.1601 dated 29.08.2005.

¶6

The petitioners’ application for regularisation was rejected. The petitioners cannot blow hot and cold. On the one hand they contend that the property is theirs and they have challenged the order of the Land Grabbing Court holding to the contrary. On the other hand they seek regularisation in terms of the scheme whereunder Government lands, in possession of private individuals, are considered for regularisation. In any event, the substantive rights, which the petitioners claim to have over the lands, can only be examined in W.P.No.3320 of 2006. As the petitioners’ application for regularisation has been rejected, the cause in this writ petition does not survive and the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶7

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶9

_____________________________ (A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J)

¶10

14^th November 2016 JSU

¶11

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶13

Writ Petition No.7809 of 2008

¶14

Date: 14.11.2016

¶15

JSU

Smt.Y.Amruthabai v. The Govt Of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Y.Amruthabai v. The Govt 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

A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. Vs Indian Bank, Hyderabad Main Branch

Mohd. Hussain Vs Noone Nambaya

Sri Y.Sudharshan, Vs The Commisioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Garlapati Venu Babu, Vs The Union Bank of India

Maddineni Venkateswarlu, Vs Vagdevi Educational Society