Dismissed

Gopika Maisamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2021WP/5915/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed challenging the alleged non-consideration of a representation seeking property mutation in favor of the petitioner's sons. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to prove that rejection notice was not served. An additional application under Section 151 CPC was also stayed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The application under Section 151 CPC was stayed.

Gopika Maisamma Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial^{Original Jurisdiction)}

¶2

THURSDAY,^{THE TENTHDAY OF JUNE} WO TTIOUSNND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

t*t"t=JJt r'AM ARN^{ArHGou D} THE HONOURABLE^SRIJ

¶4

WRIT PETI^{TIONNOr5915 oF 2021}

¶5

Between:

¶6

House^{Hold, Fl/o H No'} Gooika Maisamma,^{W/o Late Masaiah'-aged.66years' Occ} ...PETITIONER ;-"e?, V;;'h';;;,^{titiage ano Mandal'R R' District}

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The State^{of Telangana,Repby its Prl Secretary' PanchayathRa1 Department'}

¶10

Secretariat'^HYderabad

¶11

, i#bi;iili^{ijiiinrv,tn orricer'Ransa,ReddvDrstrict'} 3 The Divisionat^{eancnavair"ditii"i' io?inl;pai:l?t.IR Distinct}

¶12

Panchavath^{Secretary' i''tXji"'ci';"Pdnchayath' YacharamN'4andal'} R R Disirict

¶13

"'RESP.NDENTS

¶14

Petition^{under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in tn""'tio-'"iiiir"d therewith',the HiohCourt may be pleasedto} issue a^{Writ of mandamus ;; ;;; ;il;;appropriate writ 6rder or direction declarins} the inaction^{of the ResponJ".i.'*". i," "i rn'consiOerinothe} No^{representation} 5-102'^{situated of theat} Petitioner^{Dt.06-03-2019 tJ"l'i"Lti""} "f" her house ^bearinq yacharam Viilage and Nrj"iri'H."n"District.^{an tre na-me of 1) G lr/ Bhasker} S/o.Late^{Masaiah,2) G M ";;t;ur"Slo Late Masaiah' who are the sonsof the} Petitioner^{herein, basins} """J""ti"t"i';;;i^{iry'f- iiioner Dt 06-03-201eandNo} obiection^{Affidavit Otzzi'z'-i!li'as illegal. aroit#y' and unconstitutionaland} conseouentlv^{direct the R;""d;;t ;} I^{p +,to c^o-nsider the representation of the} Petitioner^{Dt.O6-03-2019 iol-n1'i'tion of her house bearingNo'5-102' Yacharam} 1 ) G M^{Bnasr-erS/o LateMasaiah'2)} Villaqe and^{Mandal,n n iirttli"i'} ""^ir'" """ ur.u t1^{oi the Petitioner' basing on the} G.M. Prabhakar^{S/o Late-Mat'i'n'} "ho representation^{of the p;,,,"i,;;;;'iji.oo-os-zors '} "nJ^{No objection Affidavit} o1.22.O2.2019.

¶15

IA NO:1O^{F 2021}

¶16

petition under Section 151^{cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit^{filed in support} "r^{ii-'" p"iii""" "ili} llql::* maY be^{pleased to directthe} RespondentNo.2toaio-cinsiOerpetitioner.."p'"t"nt'tionDt06-03-2019formutation^{of petitioner no"j'u#in"g"io'iioz} ^o1 tne.nlme^{of petitioner sons 1)G M'} Bhasker^{S/o Latetrlasaian' Z]6" ft'l''p'uOf'uf" S/o Late Masaiah'basingon petrtroner} Affidavit^{Dt.22-02-2019.pending} representation^{Dt.O6-03-20i6} ""i'r.,""ooi".tion disposal^{of the writ Petltlon'}

¶17

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1to 3: GP FORPANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL} DEVELOPMENT

¶19

SRI G.NARENDER^REDDY' Counsel^{for the ResPondent No'4:} S.C. FOR^GPP/MPP/ZPP

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

THE^{HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T' AMARNATH GOT]D} w PE ON^{No.5915of 2021}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The^{grievance of the petitioner is that her representationdated} 06.03.2019^{seeking mutation of propertyin favourof her sons, is not} considererl^{bY the resPondents'}

¶24

tleard^{both sidcs'}

¶25

tJpon^{rvritteninstructiclns^Mr.G.NarenderRecldr ' leamedStanding} respondentGrampanchayal'^{submitsthat thc} Llounsel^{tbr the 4th} representation^{of the petitionerrvasconsidered and reiecte<l on 20 03 '20t 9} and the^{same was alsoservedupon the petitioneron 23.03.2019 Horve'er'} the said^{t-act is denied by the leamed counselfor the petitioner saying that} no such^{proceedings is servedupon the petitioner'}

¶26

:lined^{to believe the submission made by the} This^{Counis nottnc} leamed^{counsel for the petitioner'as the saidfact is neither stated in the} affrdavit,^{nor such submission is madeupon instructionsfromthe} petitioner

¶27

ln view^{of the same'this *rit petition is liable to be dismissed and it} Horvever,^{it is open tbr rhe petitionerto} is accordinglY^dismissed' challenge^{the proceedings'if any' issued by the Grampanchayat'il sheis} aserieved^{of the same. No orderas to costs}

¶28

Pcntlirrg^{rltisccllaneoLts applications'il' anr . shall stallcl cltrsetl}

¶29

SD/. B. SATYAVATHI ASSiSTANT^REGISTRAR ,//TRUE^COPY// .\L../

¶30

SECTION^OFFICER

¶31

Hish^{courtror the} '" I 1; sqii",'i[flii?ff:?#r#i[f4FJ?''J""*"0"*n. -' State of Telangana a

¶32

Co,

¶33

One CC to Sri G.Narender Reddy, SC for GPP/MPP/ZPP,(OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy. Kj. t,-TP

¶34

HIGH^COURT

¶35

¶36

i^{olreo t 1oloal2o21}

¶37

-( iiE S14 .t
o,J 2 2 i!.]li 2021
\

¶38

ORDER

¶39

WP.No.S915^{of 2021}

¶40

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶41

Y,,,,
L'

Gopika Maisamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopika Maisamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamidi Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Ramavath Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Alugubelli Vijaya Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Bashetty Gundaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Doti Narsamma Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

P. Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana