Dismissed

Gadapa Prasad Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Nov 2019WP/22194/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging inaction and alleged illegal construction, the court dismissed the petition noting the petitioner failed to establish locus standi. The affidavit stated the petitioner's father was the landowner and alive, yet he was not impounded as a party, rendering the petition liable to be dismissed. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand dismissed.

Gadapa Prasad Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22194 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The prayer of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is as under:

¶4

“…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 in taking action against the 5th respondent contrary to the File No B/54/2019 dt 05.07.2019 issued by the 4th respondent against illegal construction of the 5th Respondent is continuing the premises of H.No.2-31, Potharam village, Kathalapur Mandal, Jagitial District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and violative of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and direct respondent No 4 to implement proceedings the File No B/54/2019 dt 05.07.2019 in respect of H.No.2-31, Potharam village, Kathalapur Mandal, Jagitial District, in the interest of justice and to pass such further or other orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for

¶6

respondent No.5.

¶7

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that respondent No.5 purchased the subject land from the father of the petitioner and that the petitioner is harassing his father.

¶8

In affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner clearly stated that his father is the owner of the subject land and he is very much alive. In such event, it is not known why the father of the petitioner is not made a party to the Writ Petition and under what capacity the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶9

In view of the same, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶11

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶12

______________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶13

05^th November, 2019 dr

Gadapa Prasad Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gadapa Prasad Rao v. The State of Telangana

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

Amudalapally Vodelu Vs The Under Secretary to Government of India

M/s. K. Lakshman Singh and Co. Vs The Garrison Engineer (U)

M/s. K. Lakshman Singh and Co. Vs The Garrison Engineer (U)

M/S Jkl Engineers and Consultants, Hyd Vs Sri Venkateswara Neuro and Super Speciality Hospitals Pvt. L

N.Lakshmi Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Smt. Gorukanti Laxmi And 15 Others Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others