Dismissed

Balaji Venkateshwara Matsya Karmika Society v. Poosa Bhagwandas

Telangana HC8 Mar 2022WA/141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana heard a Writ Appeal challenging an interim order dated 25.02.2021 passed in a pending water rights dispute. The Court held that since the main writ petition was still pending, the parties could seek clarification from the Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed as there was no reason to disturb the order.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal stands dismissed and the interim order dated 25.02.2021 remains in force.

Balaji Venkateshwara Matsya Karmika Society Vs Poosa… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY iWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEFJ.U.STICESATISH CHANDRASHARMA rHEHoNouRABLEsRr,r.filPo"r,NANDKUMARsHAVrLr WRIT APPEALNO:141 oF2022 writAppearundercrause'r50f the Letterspatentpreferred against the order dated2510212021in r'A.No.20f2021 inw.p.No.'112.10f2021,nthefireof theHigh -^Court. .\l) ..Appellant/RespondentNo.6 I^nerweeN: I^{eala.livenkateshwar.a Matsyal(armikaSociety,} J^HavrnAoflrcearMudiraiS1nS1m,Venl<arapLrramVillage, I^{Chatkesarl\4andal.Veachat_}Muttu.lgi.iilil;; ' Jl(epb\irsPresidentNiruduShankar I
Poosallhag\rncla-s.Sol_ate poosaLaxmaiah, .'\qeO'ltr()Llt/-\'L-lr'S. Itn16149.Irli.lrrd, Colonr. 'lLrsheerabacl.IJrderabacl.
l)oosaVrlirant.Sol_atepoosaLarntaiah. ,/!cOI0r)ul/()\Citt.s. Il ,' lTlir,lS.\i,,irarr \rear.. llrrristirrrpur.\Irrsheer.rbrd. IIyder'.br^',
PoosaNandaI(urrar,S/oLate poosa Laxrnaiah, Aged about59 years, Wo17510/E/2and3, NcalPochamma Ternple,GeminiColony, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
PoosaAntaravathi,Wop.Vikram, Agedabout56 years, Rzo17863/8,Mohan Nasar Zanristanpur,Musheraba-rt Irlyclelabacl, i I I I l
PossaChandrakala,Wop.Bhagwanclas, Aged about71 years, Wo16249.FrierrclsCoionv. Musheerabaci.Flyclerabaci. j I j I

¶6

6.Poosa^{Eyeleshrvar, S/o LatePoosa Satyanara'vana'} Aeed^about5lYears, R/"oI7603,^{3I /1,rjenriniCtrli-rny'} Mr.rsheerabad,^H1'delabad' .J,+ i
7.PoosaSavithri,^{V//o LateParsituram'} As.ed^aboLrt591e^aL's, tu"o1763031,1,^{(leminiColonr,} Musheerabad,^I'lvderabad'
8.Poosa^{Praveen, S/o LatePoosaParshuram'} Aeedabout³⁹Years' R/-o17630i3^{l/1,GeminiColonY'} Musheerabad,^HYderabad'
9.PoosaSantosh,^{S/oLatePoosaParshuram'} Agedabout³⁶Years, No1763013\11,^{GeminiColonY'} Musheerabad,^HYderabad'	Respor.rdents/Writ^Petitione12'
10.TheState^{of Telangana} Repbyits^{PrinciPalSecretarY,} Inigation^{andCADDepartment,} Secretariat^{Buildings,Hyderabad'} 1l.lnieation^{andComnrand AreaDevelopmentDepa} Haiingoffice^{a-Red FIills, Hyderabad} RcpbYthe^{ExectrtiveEngineer}	^rtuent
l2.lrrieation^{anclC omrnandAreaDevelopmeut} IBitrbDivision,^Medchal Repbvits^{Deputy ExecutiveEngineer}
13.TheDistrict^Ccllector, Medchal^{MalkrLjgiriD istrict} Flaving^{officerLearORR l(eesara}
14.TheTahsildar Ghatkesar^Mandal, Medchal-^{Ma)kajgirDistrict}	+0 . ..Respondents/Respor"rdents^N06'+-

¶7

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶8

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 operation of order of learned Single Judge daled 2SlO2l2O21 in l.A. No.2 of 2021 in W.P. No. 1121 ol 2021 , pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI

¶9

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 9: SRI TARUN G. REDDY

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.10 to 12:

¶11

GP FOR IRRIGATION COMMAND AND AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶12

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.13 &'14: GP FOR REVENUE

¶13

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶14

¶15

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶16

THD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶17

WRIT APPEAL No.141 OF 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT, fp, t the Hon'ble rhe CNef hstice satish chandru sharma)

¶19

The present writ appeal is arising out of the interim order dated 25.O2.2O2 1 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of.2O2l in W.P.No. 112 | of 2021.

¶20

¶21

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 9/writ petitioners stating that they are owners of the 1and, admeasuring Ac.22.23 guntas situated in Survey No.814 of Venkatapuram Village Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District, and as the appellant/ respondent No.6 in the writ petition r','as interfering with their possession and they were being restrained lrom exercising the fishing rights, they came up before this Court. lnitially an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 20 .Ol.2O2l . The interim order makes it very clear that the respondents therein were directed not to interfere with the possession of the writ petitioners. Now, the aforesaid interim order has been modified by order dated 25.02.2021 passed in LA.No.2 of 2021, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

¶22

The interim ordcr, which is under challenge in the^present writ appear, makes it very clear that the unofficial respondents

¶23

¶24

have been permitted to harvest^the fish in^{the land other than} the land of the writ^{petitionersand they have been restrained} from entering into the land over which the writ^{petitionersare} claiming possession. The interim order was^passed, as stated earlier, ot 25,02.2021 and after more than one^year now writ appeal has been filed. Nothing^prevented the^present appellant/ respondent No.6 in the writ^petition to^{prefer an} appropriate application before the learned^{Single Judgefor} clarification of the aforesaid order.

¶25

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion^thatas the main writ petition is still^{pending, the parties sha11 certainly} be free to file appropriate application before the learned^Single Judge for clarification of the aforesaid interim^{order. This Court} does not find any reason to interfere with the interim^order dated 25.O2.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶26

Resuitantly, admission is deciined and the writ appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall^stand

¶28

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Sd/. A,V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUry^REGISTRAR

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

SECTIO OF FICER

¶32

To, 1. The Section^{Officer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad.

¶33

1. it;3;;fi. officer,^{Non-service Section'High Court for the State of} Telanoana at^HYderabad,

¶34

3 o;;'iC i; Eii(iian-patarurthi,^{AdvocatetoP.Ucl} ^ 4 Two ccs to^{GPfor rrrigati;n ior;m;-nd'L-[qged Development' High Court} f-ih;ai;t^{o1T"langu"n,at Hvderabad' tourl} ^.^.

¶35

E Two CCs to Gp^{for n"v"nie,if ighbourt fo|.th-eStateof Telangana at} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶36

t) 6i;"bCi; d;1aiun^{c. Reddv, Advocate[oPUC]} 7 Two CD CoPies

¶37

8 One SPare^CoPY

¶38

CHR rr\ea

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810312022

JUDGMENT

,4; r"ai
.s
\ =s<br><br>

¶44

W.A.No.141^{<>f 2022}

¶45

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT APPEAL} WITHOUT COSTS

Balaji Venkateshwara Matsya Karmika Society v. Poosa Bhagwandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Venkateshwara Matsya Karmika Society v. Poosa Bhagwandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Noorudin Vs N. Rami Reddy

N.Kureshi Banu Vs Smt Chitra Ramachandran, I.A.S

B. Sambasiva Rao Vs Smt Chitra Ramachandran, I.A.S

M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Limited Vs The Commissioner of Labour, Government of

M/s.Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., Sirpur Kagaz nagar,rep.by its Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Secretary, Labour, Employment

Heera Lal Bhai Patel and 5 others Vs B.Upender Reddy and 2 Others