Dismissed

Gottumukkala Uma Devi v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Mar 2019WP/4442/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged government actions regarding land documents and encroachments via a writ petition seeking mandamus against revenue, registration, and municipal authorities. The court held that multifarious prayers cannot be clubbed in one writ petition and dismissed it without adjudicating substantive merits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that multifarious prayers cannot be clubbed in a single petition; petitioners to file separate cases.

Gottumukkala Uma Devi Vs State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4442 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The prayer of the petitioners in this case reads as under:-

¶5

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos.1 to 12 in entertaining the applications for registrations, building permissions and mutations filed by Respondent Nos.13, 14 and any other encroachers basing on unauthorized documents in respect of the land in Sy.No.77 to an extent of Acres.62.06 Guntas situated at Hafeezpet Village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, thereby preventing littering the nature of property and not taking action for demolition of illegal constructions as bad, illegal, void, against to the principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 12 to conduct enquiry and take action as per the Memo dated 17.09.2012 issued by Respondent No.4 and to submit report before this Honourable Court and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶6

Perusal of the Memo dated 17.9.2012 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, reflects that he directed the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, to only conduct an enquiry to ascertain as to whether any offence was committed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, warranting launching of prosecution under Section 83 thereof.

¶7

The aforestated prayer of the petitioners however goes far beyond the scope of the said Memo. The petitioners, in their wisdom, have chosen to club multiple reliefs against the revenue, registration and municipal authorities and seek intervention by this Court in a single Writ Petition. Such multifarious prayers cannot be clubbed together in a single Writ Petition thereby making it very

¶8

SK, J WP.No.4442 of 2019 Dt:05.3.2019

¶9

¶10

difficult for this Court to adjudicate the issues raised even if they are found to be meritorious.

¶11

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on this short ground leaving it open to the petitioners to file separate cases in relation to each of the individual grievances raised in this Writ Petition.

¶12

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶13

________________________
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
05 th March, 2019
dr

Gottumukkala Uma Devi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gottumukkala Uma Devi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avula Sai Baba Vs The State of TelanganaB

Todeti. Sathyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Golla Vittal Vs D. Subramanyam

Smt. Godani Bai Vs The state of Telangana

Smt.a.Sulochana Vs The Joint Collector

Smt.Sailaja Sangamreddy Vs The Joint Collector