Disposed

RamsettySudhakar v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC4 Dec 2020WP/17028/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging inaction of the Revenue Divisional Officer in reviewing orders passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the plea for immediate relief but fixed a six-week time limit for the respondent to take further action as stated in the counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take further course of action within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

RamsettySudhakar Vs The State of Telangana and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17028 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

RamsettySudhakar, S/o.R.Mallaiah, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. N0.43-1 59, Hanuman Nagar, Ir/oulali, tt/edchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyd era bad-500040.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

Revenue Divisional Officer, Cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malkajgiri Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶13

Tahsildar, MalkajgiriMandal, ttilalkajgiri, IValkajgiri-lr/edchal District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.2 in passing orders in proceedings No. L112012017 , dated 07/06/2017 on its file as arbitrary, illegal and dereliction of duty and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to complete the proceedings.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to complete the proceedings in No.L112012017, dated 07/06/20'l 7 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAVI PRABHAKAR FOR

¶19

SRI K, KARUNA MAHENDER REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

-2

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.1702 8 of 2O2O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶26

On O7.06.2017 orders are passed exercising^powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C., on account of subsequent developments, petitioner seeks to lift the said orders. 3. This writ petition is filed praying to declare the action of respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.) in not reviewing his decision imposing restrictions in the orders passed by him on 07 .06.20L7 in exercise of powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

¶27

In paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit deposed by Revenue Divisional officer, it is stated that further course of action would be initiated for pronouncing release orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. after obtaining the present status of the cases and issue in the disputed iand from the Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station in order to maintain public peace and tranquillity over the disputed land.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioner is satisfied with this response. However, he requests some time limit may be fixed to the R.D.O. to take decision on the issue.

¶29

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that vehicles are already released and sufficient time is required for R.D.O. to pass orders and requests three months time for taking a decision.

¶30

-3

¶31

However, the Court deems it necessary to fix six weeks time for taking decision in accordance with the statement made by R.D.O. in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit.

¶32

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to take further course of action as stated in paragraph No.4 of counter alfidavit within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

¶34

SD/.V.S HA

¶35

ASSISTANT RE RAR

¶36

/iTRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER

¶37

1. The Principal secretary, Revenue Department, state of rerangana, secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶38

To,

¶39

Revenue Divisional officer, cum-sub-Divisional r,4agistrate, tMalkajgiri Division, tVedchal-Malkaiqiri District.

¶40

Tahsitdar. Malk'a]girilr/andal, lr,4alkajgiri, Malkajgiri_tVedchal District 4 One CC to Sri K^-Karuna MatrenOeihedOy, nilio"rte tOpU-Ci'^-' 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court ior tfre State bf fetairgana at Hyderabad. IOUTI

¶41

Two CD Copiei

Smr$r

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411212020

ORDER

WP.No.17028 of 2020

1HE SIa
o e
k
oo5 1 I DEC Zmo 'r
'e0

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

q&$r'^
<br>)F 1a 1t> *-

RamsettySudhakar v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

RamsettySudhakar v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

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

Koripelli Srinivas Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Singareni Collieries Officers Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

M. Anji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

M a Moiz Abbasi Vs Mr Kishan Naik

Cheguri Anitha Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

M/s, Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana