Disposed

A v. Raghuram v State of Tg,Prl.Scy,M.Ad.,Hyd,and 3

Telangana HC23 Apr 2018WP/32112/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of four writ petitions challenging the rejection of land regularization applications. The High Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioners' pending appeals within three months or issue notice for fresh copies.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to consider appeals preferred by petitioners expeditiously, within three months of receipt of a copy of this order.

A v Raghuram Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,M.Ad.,Hy… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.32082, 32112, 32124 and 32235 of 2017

¶2

COMMON ORDER :

¶3

Since the subject matter in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶4

All these Writ Petitions are filed seeking to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not regularizing subject plots in Survey No.215 of Boduppal Village (presently Boduppal Municipality), Medipally Mandal, Malkajgiri/Medchal District, despite submitting LRS applications within the time in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.902, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, dated 31.12.2007, and rejection order of the 2^nd respondent, dated 27.10.2009, and consequential rejection order, dated 20.05.2016, of the 2^nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent filed counter-affidavit justifying their action of rejecting applications for regularization.

¶6

However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that against orders of rejection, the petitioners have filed appeals before the 1^st respondent and the said appeals are pending.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that there is no reference of appeal numbers or date of filing of appeals. But, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeals were submitted on 22.09.2016 afresh, after filing of an appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of orders of refusal by the 2^nd respondent.

¶8

¶9

In the circumstances, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider appeals preferred by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If copies of appeals are not available with the 1^st respondent, appropriate notice shall be issued to the petitioners for submitting fresh copies of appeals in order to take further action.

¶10

Accordingly, with the above direction, all the Writ Petitions are disposed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

________________________________
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO , J
APRIL 23, 2018
YVL

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION Nos.32082, 32112, 32124 and 32235 of 2017

¶15

Date:23.04.2018

¶16

YVL

A v. Raghuram v State of Tg,Prl.Scy,M.Ad.,Hyd,and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A v. Raghuram v State of Tg,Prl.Scy,M.Ad.,Hyd,and 3

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

P.Chandra Sekhar Vs the Muncipal Commissioner,v.v.K.Kumari

Sure Rama Krishna Rao, Guntur Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Endowments,Vijayawada,and 2 Otrs.

J,Rajeshwar Vs J. Rajeswar Rao (Died) and Another

Chilappagari Sulochana Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Mallikarjuna Rajaka Abhivrudhi Sangam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

A Pratibha, Hyderabad Vs the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 3 Others