Dismissed

Sri Venkateswara Plot Owners Association v. Sri Aziz Jeelani

Telangana HC2 Dec 2021WA/93/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Sri Venkateswara Plot Owners Association. The court held that since the Single Judge had merely granted liberty to the writ petitioner to work out private remedies without granting relief, there was no reason to interfere with that order on an appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with admission declined.

Sri Venkateswara Plot Owners Association Vs Sri Aziz… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2021

¶6

Writ Appeal under clause^"15 of the Letters Patent preferred Against the Order dated. 27-07-2020 in W.P.No. 9235 of 2020 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Venkateswara Plot Owners Association, Rep. by its President, Sri Nalla Mahipal Reddy, S/o. Nalla Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged about 71 years, Occ: Business, Fi./o. H.No. 1-7-139147, SRK Nagar, Golkonda X' Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

...APPELLANT/ THIRD PARTY APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri Aziz Jeelani, S/o Late Ghulam Jeelani, Aged About 56 years, Occ: Business, No. 17-3-194139, B-Block, Madina Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT NO.1/ WRIT PETITIONER

¶13

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

¶14

The District Collector, Medchal, Malkajgiri District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, l/alkajgiri, Medchal District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Alwal IVandal, Medchal District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOs.2 TO 5 in THE WRIT PETITION

¶18

lA NO: 4 OF 2021

¶19

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 stay the orders passed in W.P.No.9235/2020 dated. 27-07-2020 and pending disposal of the main writ appeal.

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J. VENKATESHWAR REDDY FOR SRI P. CHANORAKANTH

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BL ) THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA STIARMA

¶25

AND

¶26

TIT E HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶27

W.A.No.93 of 2O2L

¶28

JUDGMENT: tP^{. the} tla,t bte^the chr(/./,,rr,.e s6r,sr crr,,i.i,a -sr,o,,u/

¶29

The pre ient writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 27.O7.2O2O l,assed by the learned Single J udge in W.P.No.9235 o. 2O2O.

¶30

The und sputed facts of the case reveal that one Mr. Aziz Jeelani, respor dent No.l in the present writ appeal, came up before this cc irt by filing the writ petition stating that the Tahsildar, the I levenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector, Medchal-Malka giri District, were illegally interfering into Lris property in Su^-vey Nos.576, 578 and 579, admeasuring Ac.6.04 guntas, situate 1 in Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶31

Learned Government Advocate appearing in the matter stated categorir ally before the learned Single Judge that mutation proceedings toc k place in favour of the writ petitioner and rhe Joint Collector has granted an interim order staying the mutation proceedings, hr wever, the authorities are not at all interfering with the possession rf the writ petitioner.

¶32

The learr ed Single Judge, after observing that anv private dispute betwee r the parties is left open and the writ^petitioneris free to work or.t his remedies, has disposed of the writ^petition. Meaning theret y, no relief has been granted to the writ^petitioner while disposing of the writ petition.

¶33

Now, a u rit appeal has been filed by one Sri Venkateswara Plot Owners As rociation being aggrieved by the order passed by the

¶34

learned Single Judge. In the considered opinion of this court, once no relief has been granted to respondent No. 1/wrlt petitioner and mere Iy a liberty has been granted to work out his remedie s, in case of private dispute, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶35

Admission is declined. The writ appeal is dismissed.

¶36

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shail stand

¶37

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

SD/-CH.VEN KATESWARU LU DEPU]Y#GISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ I SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To 1 One CC to Sri P. Chandrakanth, Advocate tOpUCl a One CC to Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, Advocatb topubl 3 Two CCs to GP for Reven-ue, High CoLirt for'the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4 Two CD Copies. 5 One Spare Copy. MP BS a\ .y

¶40

HIGH COURT

¶41

DATED:0211212)21

¶42

1klt i' ' y.i J A*
2
2 1 t)[fi ?lp1

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

WA.No.93 ol2C21

¶45

DISMISSING TI IE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COS TS €w

Sri Venkateswara Plot Owners Association v. Sri Aziz Jeelani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkateswara Plot Owners Association v. Sri Aziz Jeelani

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

Shaik Sardar Vs Telangana State Northern Power Distributiion Company Ltd.

Nagarjuna Nagar Welfare Association Vs the Zonal Commissioner, Hyd.

Forum for Good Governance Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ananya Infra Projects Private Limited, Vs The State of Telangana

Basuradi Anjaiah , China Anjaiah (died) Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Bilquees Bee and 38 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 8 Others