Disposed

Smt. Vattikonda Girija v. Esram Prasad

Telangana HC1 Apr 2021WA/101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain a writ appeal seeking vacation of an ex parte order. The court directed the appellant to pursue the pending stay application before the Single Judge and disposed of the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of. The appellant was directed to pursue the pending stay application before the single judge. No costs to the respondent.

Smt. Vattikonda Girija Vs Esram Prasad — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 101 OF 2021

¶7

Wdt Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 15t02t2021 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.30B7 of 2021 on the fite of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Vattikonda Girija, W/o V. Venkata Rao, aged about 70 years, Occ: Agrrculture, r/o Alinagaram village, tVladira [t4andal, Khammam District.

¶10

...AppellanURespondent No.4

¶11

in l.A.No.1 ot 2021 in W.P.No.3087 2021

¶12

AND

¶13

I Esram Prasad, S/o Esram Yesu, age 39 years, Occ. Business, r/o H.No.1-6/'1, Ramapuram Post, Bonakal il/landal, Khammam District.

¶14

2 Shaik Peer Saheb, S/o Alli Saheb, age 48 years, Occ. Business, r/o H.No.3-63, Chirunomula Post, Bonakal lvlandal, Khammam District.

¶15

Smt. Bathula Renuka, W/o Sheker Babu, Age 32 yearc, occ. House wife, r/o H.No.2-65, Chirunomula Post, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District.

¶16

Ganji Eeswaraiah, S/o Bangairaiah, age 44 years, Occ. Business, r/o H.No.14-'1161, Tulasi Nagar (Allapur), Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

Ankam Pullarao, S/o Ramulu, age 38 years, Occ. Carpenter, r/o H.No.14-1180/5. Tulasi Nagar, (Allapur), Balanagar lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

...RespondentsMrit Petitioners No.1 to 5

¶19

The Collector and District Magistrate, Khammam District.

¶20

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶21

The State of Telangana, rep by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶22

Smt. Ravella Padmavathi, Dio late Janaki Ramaiah, r/o H.No.4-2-800. Flat No.'103. A- Block, Kamatham Residency, Near Consumer Court, lndiranagar, Khammam, District Khammam.

¶23

...Respondents/Respondents No.1, 2 3 & 5 in W.P.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶25

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 pass an order suspending the operation of exparte interim orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in l.A.No.1 ol 2021 in W.P.No.3087 of 2021 dated:151212021, Pending disposal of main Writ Appeal.

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. S. CHANDRASEKHAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 to 8: GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.9: NONE APPEARED

¶30

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶31

_1N

¶32

Item No. I 7

¶33

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶35

W.A.No.l0l of 2021

¶36

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

¶37

The appellant (respondent No.4 in W.P.No.3087 of 2021) has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by an interim order dated 15.02.2021, passed by the leamed Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the respondents No.l to 5 wherein, the order of the respondent No.6/appellate authority dated 15.02.2020 has been suspended. 2. On enquiring from learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant has moved an application for seeking vacation of the ex parte order dated 15.02.2021, he concedes that an application has been moved on 26.02.2021, which is pending consideration before the leamed Single Judge.

¶38

That being the position, we decline to entertain the present appeal. It is for the appellant to pursue the vacate stay application moved before the leamed Single Judge.

¶39

The present appeal 1S disposed of along rvith the pending

¶40

applications, if any.

¶41

SD/-CH.VENKATESWARU^LU DEPUTY BEGISTRAR (ab //TRUE COPY' SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Collector^{and District Magistrate'Khamm.am District'} i. i# i;;;;;e^{oivisionat bmiEr.,(nurnrnurn'Khammam District'} 3. The^{principalSecretary,H!,i,.",.]t"'ri"irrlment, stateof Telangana, secretariat.} Hvderabad.

¶44

, 6'"["cCi,i Sri^{s. chandrasekhar'Advocate[oPU.c]-} -' i. 6ij" 66 i"^{sri (ritnn, (iJn-or."rouvuri'Advo'cate^[oPUCl} 6. Two CCs to^{GP tor neve"nul]HGn C"ilrtfor the Siateof Telanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT]

z. Two CD^CoPies

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10412021

JUDGMENT

W.A.No.101 ot 2021

i1('. sIA
c,J
1 7 APB 2021
* t-

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

Smt. Vattikonda Girija v. Esram Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vattikonda Girija v. Esram Prasad

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

G. Srinivas Yadav Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sujata Borde Vs Smt Shamita Bhattacharya

Vp, Subhodaya Harijana Girijana Bc and Weaker Sections Assn., Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 5 Others

C. Gopaiah and 37 Ors. Vs Secy., Rev. Dept. and 8 Ors.

M/s.Transgene Biotek Limited. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited Vs Telangana State Human Rights Commission