Writ petition seeking prohibition against revenue proceedings dismissed as infructuous as case was disposed of pending adjudication.
None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THETWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLESRIJUSTICEA.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITIONNO.4884OF2O2O
Between:
P.Parimala,W/o AgastyaVarun Reddy' Agedab.qut 25 vears OccHouse Wife' R/o H.No.8-1-301/102,#'il' rlil"i' Liimi Nasar bolonv'shaikpetNala' ...PETITIoNER Hyderabad
o*?. -n" state of relangana' Rep by its Principal secretaryRevenue Department'
it:,,;,turff ffir;*ffi ;tr#'**[;;ffii;ffi
Petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in tne attiOa'it filedtherewith' the High Court may be pleased to issuea Writ' Order o"''""t'onmore particularlyone in the nature of Prohibition officer'secunderabad Division-3rd R:spondent' againstthe Revenue ''"t"' proceedingwith the enquiry/adiud icationin case prohibitingthe said "tno'n' "orn No.Bl497/2020'
o-"tJa"iit;';tifider section 151 cPCpravingthat in the circumstancesstated in theaffidavitfiteo in support-or,nu o"rn,on, the High court maybe pleasedto stay all andfurther proceeoingsif'""" *"Bl4g7t2o2oon the file of the Revenue DivisionalOfficer'secunOeraoaODivision-3rdRespondent'pendingdisposalofthe WritPetition'
Counselfor the Petitioner:SRIP' ROY REDDY
Counselfor the Respondent Nos' 'l to 3: GP FORREVENUE
Counselfor the Respondent Nos'4& 5: M/S' INDUS LAWFIRM
TheCourt made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
VVRIT PETITION N o.4884 of 2020 aBp!&
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the lear.ned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No,3 has already disposed of Case No.B/497/202O and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. Recording the said statement, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stancl
closed. Ihere shall be no order as to costs.
,TRUE COPY// ^'3iJ;'ii,1X'JA,l!?AiH/
To, SECTION OFFICER 1 toJ"yf r the 2 flyei}i it Id%,- i.".;,,f,iy" iil? State of Tela 3. ", ngana at 4. ffi33 tooY,'&.'nt"Law Firm,Advocate (opuc) 5, one Spare bopy N1P .4---
HIGH COURT
DATED:2511U2At21
STAT E
i)
1i, \s\ltil Ie!"
\o
.l'
ORDER
WP.No.4884 of 2020
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
@ ^\o\r</sup>
P.Parimala
State of Telangana
A. Abhishek Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
