Dismissed

Sri.T.Kishan Singh v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC9 Nov 2021WA/66/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common judgment admitted appeals were withdrawn by appellants citing a subsequent order by Respondent No.4. The High Court allowed the prayer of withdrawal and dismissed the writ appeals as withdrawn, pending interlocutory applications also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of writ appeals allowed; appeals dismissed as withdrawn. Interlocutory applications dismissed. Without costs.

Sri.T.Kishan Singh Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIGE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 66 AND 68 OF 2020

¶8

wA NO.66 0F 2020:

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent^preferred Against the Order Dated 3011212019 in W.P.No 29041 Of 2019 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sri.T.Kishan Singh, S/o. Sri.T.Prem Singh, Aged^{40 years,} Occ.^{Business, R/o.} 15-1-419, Feel Khana, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. ...AppELLANr

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

The District Collector, Hyderabad District at^Hyderabad.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Hyderabad Division, Nampally,Hyderabad} District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad^District.

¶17

The Village Revenue Officer, Nampally^{tMandal,Hyderabad District.}

¶18

The Statibn House Officer, P.S.Shahinayat^{Gunj, Hyderabad.}

¶19

...RES,ONDENTS

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthatin the circumstancesstated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High court may be pleasedto permit the} petitioner to use the premises and undertake development^{activity in premises} bearing H.no.14-3-251t1 and^{2 situatedat Goshamahal, Begum Bazar,Hyderabad,} pending disposal of the writ appeal

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S.^SRIDHAR

¶23

Counsel for Respondent Nos.^{1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No.^{6: GP FOR HOME}

¶25

WA NO: 68 OF 2020

¶26

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the orderdated} 3011212019 in W.P. No.^{29043of 2019 on the file of the High Court.}

¶27

Betwee n:

¶28

Sri. T.Gyaneshwar Singh,^{S/o- Sri.T.Prem Singh, Aged38 years' Occ- Business,} R/o- 15-i-419, Feel Khana,^{Begum Bazar' Hyderabad.} ...AppELLANr

¶29

AND

¶30

'1 . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hvderabad

¶31

The District C6llector,^{Hyderabad District at Hyderabad.}

¶32

The Revenue Drvisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad District.

¶33

The Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad District.

¶34

the Vittage Revenue Officer, Namphlly Mandal, Hyderabad District.

¶35

The Station House Officer, p.S.Sfrbhiriayat Cunl, tiVAeranuO.^'"'"

¶36

_.*.rroNDENrs

¶37

lA NO: I OF 2020

¶38

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 permit the petitioner to use the premises and undertake deveropment activity in premises bearing H.no.14-3-zs1r1 and 2 situated at Goshamahar, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ appeal

¶39

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S. SRIDHAR

¶40

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶41

Counsel for Respondent No. 6: Gp FOR HOME

¶42

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

T h andf

and

I R e d Writ Apoeal Nos.66 & 6g of 2020

¶47

COmmOn JUdgment: (per rhe Hon,ble rhe Chief Justice sarish Chanara srrarma)

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants prays ro withdraw

¶49

the \7rit Appeals on the ground that respondent

¶50

No.4/Tahsildar has already passed an order in these matters. 2. Praver is allowed.

¶51

(/rit Appeals are, accordingl),, dismissed as withdrawn.

¶52

Consequenth., Inrerlocurorv AppLcations, pcnding if

¶53

anv, stand dismissed.

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SD/-CH.VEN KATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR Itt \.,' ,/

¶56

SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

One CC to Sri S Sridhar Advocate [OPUC] z. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] J. Two CCs to GP For Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies A One Spare Copy

¶59

IMBC \ *--

¶60

HIGH COURT r'"

¶61

DATED: 0911112021

¶62

1 HE STA
(
C
(_l 2 s N0l,l$pt l)
a Or:S -,r,i

¶63

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶64

WA.Nos.66 & 68 of 2020

¶65

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS

¶66

WITHOUT COSTS

Sri.T.Kishan Singh v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.T.Kishan Singh v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital and Research Centre Vs The Presiding Oficer

The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Vs P. Ramaswamy

State of Telangana and 3 others Vs G.Sathyawathi and 42 others

Kalyan Dileep Sunkara Vs Union of India deleted as per court order dated 14/07/2021

Sri. T.Gyaneshwar Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Gundapuneni Yamunadevi, Vs Mohd. Ghouse Khan and 3 others