Partly allowed

Smt. Appala , Akula Chandramma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Feb 2021WA/102/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ appeal challenging an interim order that suspended revenue proceedings and directed mutation. The Court directed the appellant to file a counter affidavit in the pending main writ petition, requesting the single judge to decide the matter within three months after pleadings completion. The appeal was disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of with direction to appellant to file counter affidavit within four weeks; the learned Single Judge is directed to decide the main writ petition within three months of pleading c

Smt. Appala , Akula Chandramma Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE SECONDDAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI} AND THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICEB.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶6

WRIT AP^{PEAL NO:102 0F 2018}

¶7

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentPreferredAgainsttheorderDated 4787912017 in W.P.No.38572^{of 2017 on the file of} 13-12-2017 Passed^{in W.P.tt/.PNo} the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Appala @^{Akula Chandramma'W/o.Late Appala Odelu @ Akula Pocham' Aged} 46 years, R/o. Sukravara*i;i'irii;s;,'"N/;iii;,;;I^{rv;"dui,ee-ooapatty(Karimnasar)} District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESpONDENT^No.6

¶11

AND 1. The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary' Department of Revenue'} Secretariat,^{HYd e ra bad.}

¶12

2 YX;' 6l;ili.'i C6iiJ.iJr,^{Pedda pallv( Karim nasar) District'} 3 +i]:^{"d;V';;""5viribn,r-dfii,ii,''rririiirir"fi-oirision, PeddapaIIy (Karimnasar)} District.

¶13

4 ir.,t iatrasiroar,^{Ramagiri Mandal, peddapally (Karimnaoar)District.} 5 ii]E V]irJ#"H""""r,i"otti;;|.."elig"p"i;iltbe'^{nam6giii trilandal' Peddapallv} (Karimnagar) District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

6 fsi,i:&i-s',i,,?3j["[^{?:,:1?ffil,''9,,333:',nfJ,Y]3,5#,'lf$.if"3"?"""1"i'i} iKarimnaqar) District jiltTn1Yi"-J'llutf, ii;#'ffi :"e:i'!3:.',",ff i,

¶16

&BJi:qJi[3:5at-M,g"1l (Karimnagar) District. ...RES'ONDENTS/'ET,T,ONERS^{1 & 2& 22}

¶17

...RES'ONDENTS/'ET,T,ONERS^{1 & 2& 22}

¶18

IAN :1O^{F 2018}

¶19

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition' the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the^{orderpassed by this Hon'ble} Court in^{WPMPNo.4787912017} ln WP No.38572/2017,^{dt.13.122017'}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Appellant:SRI KIRANKUMAR B'}

¶21

Counsel^{for the RespondentNos' 't to 5: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'6 & 7: SRIGUDI MADHU SUDHAN REDDY}

¶23

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶24

THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IMA KOHLI

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶27

WRIT APPEAL No. 102 OF 2018

¶28

J DGMENT:^(Per the Hon'ble the Chief^{Justice Hima} Kohli)

¶29

The present writ appeal is directed against an interim order Cated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Single^Judge ona miscellaneous application, registered as W.P.M.P.No.47879 of 2017, ln moved by the respondents No.6 and T lwrit petitioners W.P.No.38572 of 2017.

¶30

By the interim order, the leamed single Judge has suspended the proceedings taken out by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Ramagiri Mandal, Peddapally District and has directed him to mutate the names of the respondents No.6 and 7/writ^{petitionersin the revenuerecords} on the basis of the order dated 30.10.2015,^passed llt SOP.No.293 of 2012, within a fixed timeline.

¶31

It is the stand of the appellant that by^virtne of^{the interim} order, the leamed single Judge has actually allowed the writ^petition itsetf which is still pending adjudication.

¶32

Leamed counsel for the respondents No.6 and 7/writ^petitioners states that while the appellant has been in a tearing^{hurry to approach} this court by filing an appeal, she has not taken any^{steps so far to file} a counter affidavit and as a result, the writ^petition is^{stilt pending} adj udication.

¶33

Page l of2

¶34

ll/.A.No.102 of 2018

¶35

It is deemed appropriate to dispose of the^present appeal^with directions to the appellant to file a counter affidavit in^{the pending} writ petition within four weeks with a copy to learned counsel^for the respondents No.6 and 7/writ petitioners, who may file rejoinders, if any, within four weeks thereafter. The^impugned order^dated 13.12.2017 being only interim in nature,^{the leamed SingleJudge is}

¶36

requested to decide the matter after^{examining the standof both sides,} preferably within three months from the date^{pleadings are completed} in the writ petition.

¶37

The present appeal is accordingly disposed of^{along with the} pending applications, if any.

¶38

SD/^{- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARM} A DEPUTY^REGIS R

¶39

,TRUE^COPY//

¶40

SECTION^OFFICER

¶41

To, 1 The Section^{Officer,WritDivisionBench' High,Court for the State of Telangana'} 3: ?*::.t s StJ [F'#it1"B;R:'ftEl b"o'u;"io,. the state of reransana at 4. Hvderabad. 6'.:,"bt?;^di6rlri [OUT]^{rrltuort'sudhanReddv' Advocate(oPUC)} 5. Two CD^CoPies.

Page 2 of2

W.A.No.l02 of 2018

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210212021

HE T4
(
oo 15 rEB 2021 C
a c9
9

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WA.No.102 ot 2018

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

'|
1&|;"4 ^
-)- r{t'1 )o"l

Smt. Appala , Akula Chandramma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Appala , Akula Chandramma 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

The State of Telangana Vs Sri.Varikoti Nagaraju

The State of Telangana and 3 others Vs Sandri Sunitha

The State of Telangana Vs Smt.Arikilla Rama

The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Rep by its Vice Chairman Hanamkonda, Vs M/s. G. Vikas Reddy and Co.

Ayush Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

M/s.Sri Venkateshwara General Agencies Vs The State Of Telangana