Dismissed

MoluguriVenkateswarlu v. The Special Revenue Tribunal District Collector

Telangana HC23 Aug 2021WP/18814/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition contesting an order dismissing a revisional appeal, the High Court found that the petitioner could have pursued remedies simultaneously but held the Special Tribunal correct in dismissing the appeal while granting liberty to prosecute the pending suit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to prosecute the pending suit.

MoluguriVenkateswarlu Vs The Special Revenue Tribunal… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

wRtT PET|T|ON NO. 't8814 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Moluguri Venkateswarlu, S/o.Narayana, Aged about 43 years, Occ Softwa re Engineer N o.2-2-1 1 67 I 4, T ilak Nagar, Nallkunta, ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Special Revenue Tribunal District Collector, Mancherial District. The Thasildar, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶10

Kankanala Shyamsunder, S/o.Sudershan, Aged about 44 years, Occ.Business, R/o.D.No.28-247, Vemula Basthi, Mancherial.

¶11

4 Kommidi Ravinder Reddy, (died per LRs) 5 Kommidi Shyamala, Wo.Late Ravinder Reddy, aged about 51 years, Occ.housewife, Fl/o.Flat No.303, Block No.9, Vaddepally Enclave, Vivekananda Nagar, Bhashyam School, Kukatpally, Medchal Mandal of Malkajgiri District.

¶12

6 Kommidi Spurthi Reddy, D/o.Late Ravinder Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ.Pvt. Employee, Fl/o.Flat No.303, Block No.9, Vaddepally Enclave, Vivekananda Nagar, Bhashyam School, Kukatpally, Medchal Mandal of N/alkajgiri District.

¶13

7 Kommidi Kanakamma, W/o Kommidi Aga Reddy, aged 70 years, Occupation. House Wife, H.No.5-67/2, Village and Post Nagaram, Pin 506169, Mandal Bhoolapally, District Jayashankar Bhoolapally.

¶14

8 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. secretariat' Hyderabad

¶15

...RES'.NDENTS

¶16

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 writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order dated 28/06/2021 in ST No. 117120211G191212019, passed by the respondent and consequently quash the same by restoring the earlier Proceedings no.ROR/6A/Naspurl653l2012 daled 191112013 to its original record. IAN :1OF20 1

¶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 suspend the proceedings. No.RORI/1A,/Naspurl32l2018 dated 301612018 along with consequentional Proc. No.MUT/'l5/1510000212018 Dated 301712018 and Proc. No.MUT/1 5/15/00009/2018 dated 231812018 issued by the 2nd respondent,pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GANTA RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 &8i GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7: --

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

PNT ] w.P.No.l88l.{ of20!l

¶21

¶22

,lI I

¶23

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEP'NAVEENRAO}

¶24

WRIT PETITION^{No. 1 aa]-4 of 2O2l}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri G. Ramakrishna,^{learned counselfor petitioner} and learned^{Government Pleader for Revenueappearingfor} respondent Nos.l and^{2 and Sri KondadiAjay Kumar,learned} counsel lor resPondent^No.3.

¶27

This Writ Petition is^{filed for the following relief:}

¶28

"...to issue writ^{directionor ordermore particularlyin the natureof} Writ of certiorari calling^{for the records pertainingto order dated} 2810612021in^{ST No1t7/2021/G1912/2019passedby the respondent} and consequently^{quashthe sameby restoring the earlier Proceedings} no ROR/6A,Nasptr:l65312012^{dated191112013to its originai record'"}

¶29

This Writ Petition^{is institutedchallengingorder of the} Special Tribunal^{daled 28.06.2027}

¶30

The Special Tribunal^{dismissed the appeal preierredagainst} mutation order^{passedin favour of unofficialrespotldentson the} ground that Writ Petition^{Nos.6952and 7345 of 2O2O are pending} on same issue and^{O.S.No. 147 of 2079 is also pending'}

¶31

Petitioner instituted^{O'S.No.147 ol 2Ol7 in the Courtof} Senior Civil Judge,^{Mancheriai, seeking comprehensiverelief to} declare that^{plaintiff as co-owner is entitled to I I 4.d\ share in} Schedule A to^{C properties, consequently to set asideproceedings} of Tahsildar, Naspur,^{Mancherial,and consequentlyto grant} injunction against^{defendantNos.S to 11 not to alienate suit} properties belonging to^{partnership of MatrusriInfra mentioned in}

¶32

TNR. J w.P.No.l66r4 of202l

¶33

¶34

¶35

Schedules A to C. In the list of documents filed in the said suit, item No.40 is acknowledgment copy of^{appeal preferredby} petitioner before the Revenue^{DivisionalOfficer against the order of} the Tahsildar^{granting mutation.This was the very sameappeal} which is now decided by^{the Special TribunalPetitioner having} sought comprehensive^{reliefbefore the trial Court' he could not} have prosecuted^{simultaneously remedy of appeal before the} revenue Court^{underSection5(5) of Act 26 of 1971' This Court is} also informed^{that suit filed by petitioner is pending consideration} of the triai^{Court. I do not see any error in the order of the Special} Tribunal^{dismissing appeal whilegiving liberty to petitioner to} prosecute^the Pending^suit'

¶36

This Writ^{Petition is dismissed affirming the view takenby} the Special^{Tribunaland grantingliberty to petitionerto prosecute} the^{pending suit' Pending miscellaneouspetitions' if any' shall}

¶37

stand^closed.

¶38

DRA^{SEKHAR RAO} SD /. N,CHAN TANT^REGISTRAR ASSIS Ca" //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

t'' 1^g,l,: %".,: ?J' ?fl^{,?#"il"1[ii,[:''S3il"*iiol"Y"il"state or reransanaat}

¶40

"^{b'"{"1'StS l?H$o'o' Alav Kumar' Advocate (oPUc)} 7. two two CD^CoPies'

¶41

two two CD^CoPies' i. on"^SParecoPY'

&---

HIGH COURT

DATED:23108t2021

ORDER

1ng $IA16 \ ,<br>(
o-l
L) 0a,0ti?$?1
./^
l:'

¶48

WP.No.18814 of 2021

¶49

.?f.:ytsstNc^{rHE wRtr} PEflfloN WITHOUT COSTS.

¶50

&,)... 3aI,1 c

MoluguriVenkateswarlu v. The Special Revenue Tribunal District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MoluguriVenkateswarlu v. The Special Revenue Tribunal District Collector

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

Poreddy Ram Reddy Vs State of Telangana

M /s Lkp Infra Projects Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Pandala Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Geekuru , Jeekuru Yadagiri and another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Syyed Faisuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Donthi Juluri Balamma Vs State of Telangana