Dismissed

Sri Veerannagari Gautham Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Dec 2022WP/11450/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 11450 of 2021 as withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to file a fresh petition. The Court directed the cancellation of any registration done after an interim order and closed pending miscellaneous applications in the matter.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. An order was passed to cancel any subsequent registrations and take consequential steps.

Sri Veerannagari Gautham Reddy Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 11450 OF 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sri Veerannagfl-r Gautham Reddy, S/o Narender Reddy Aged 50 years Occ. Business Rt/o PIot No,72 Legend Chimes, Kokapet, Ranla Reddy District. $ep^{by his GPAholder OsmanAli Osmani s/o Ali NizamO-smani aled about} 44 years H No. 16-10-1/2/tu1, Rc road, Malakpet, Hvderabad.

¶7

9mt Veerannagari- Chaitanya Bg9OV O SimhaJri Chaithanaya Reddy, D/o V Narender Reddy Wo Srmh_adrr Kiran aged 48 years R/o g7ti0, Carriage Hills Road Savage M 5578 US. Rep by his GpA'holder K Ramakrishna Reddv Vo ,late KYaliReddy aged about 40 years r/o Flat no. 303. Nath Utsav Ap( Tilak nagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad 500044.

¶8

Srinis Developers (Pan No.ADUFS7948C), Rep by Sri Gandra Srinivas Rao 9/o^{l.atg G.Narsing_Rao aged 47yrs Oci.BusinedsR/o 1-4-1g}lA1gl2,} Oi Alwal, Opp.Layola College, BHEL Colony, Secunderabad

¶9

Achanta Ramu, S/o A Satyanarayana Vara prasad Aged 44 yrs Occ. pvt Employee R/o,Flat No.44, Herons Apt.. Vaishali Nagar, Madinaglda, Miyapur Hyderabad 500 049

¶10

...PET|T|ONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Medchal-lValkaioiri Diskict.

¶14

The Commissioner and lnspector Gen6ral of Reglstrations and Stamps, Telangana Hyderabad

¶15

The Commissioner, Telangana Endowments Department, Boggulakunta. Abicls. Hyderabad.

¶16

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department , Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

Tahsildar Cum Sub Registrar, Shameerpet lvlandal IVedchal-Malka.jgiri Drstrict.

¶18

7 Sri Seetharar-nq Sv_vqmy Temple 3-35, Devaryarnial Shamerpet Mandal, Medchal tVlalkajgiri, District.

¶19

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constirution of tndia ,;"i=r?T:,',:-J: circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lr4andamus

¶20

i) Declaring the inclusion of Petitioners lands in Memo No. G112263 of 2014

¶21

dated 25-09-2014 sent by Respondent No.3 to respondent No.6 as

¶22

unlaMul, unconstitutional and violative of petitioners'constitutional rights and set aside such inclusion

¶23

ii) Declare the said Memo No. G1/2263 of 2014 dated 25-09-2014 in so far as the petitioners' lands as ultravires Endowment Act, Registration Act apart from being uncon stitutional and strike down the said Memo No. G112263 of 2014 dated 25-09-2014.

¶24

iii ) Declare the action or respondent No.6 in taking note of such itlegal communication sent by respondent No. 3 and thereby not registering and releasing the documents presented by the petitioners relating to the Iand presented by the petitioners in respect of land rn Sy No.214lPart to an extent of Ac.0-14.528 guntas situated at Davaryamjal Village, Shameerpet Mandal Medchal-Malkajgiri District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra-vires Registration Act and set aside such action

¶25

iv) Resultantly direct the respondent No.6 to forthwith register and release the sale deed which was presented by the petitioners and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' rights in any manner IA NO: 10F 2021

¶26

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 direct the 6th Respondent to forthwith register and release the document which' was presented by the Petitioners pertaining to the land in Sy.No.214lPart to an extent ot Ac.0-14.528 guntas situated at Davaryamjal Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal-Malka.jgiri District without reference to the communication of the 3rd respondent issued vide Memo No. G1/2263 of 2014 dated 25-09-2014 pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶27

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 permit the petitioners herein to amend the cause title of the writ petition so as to amend the name of the Petitioner No.4 to read as: "Achanta Ramu S/o A. Satyanarayana Vara Prasad Aged 44 years Occ: Pvt Employee R/o Flat No.4A, Herons Apt., Vaishali Nagar, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Hyderabad 500 049"

¶28

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CpC prayinq that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioners herein to have the w.p. No.11450 of 2021 listed under caption "FOR BEING fVENTIONED" for enabling the petitioner herein to seek a correction of the order dated 2glj4l2o21 made in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.p. No.1 1450 of 2021 for obtaining necessary orders Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3&6: Gp FOR STAMpS AND REGISTRATION Counsel forthe Respondents No.4to5: Gp FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRl. K. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

l I

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1145O of 2021

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a letter dated 22.L2.2022 requesting permission to withdraw the writ petition, with a liberty to the petitioner to file alresh writ petition.

¶34

This Court by ,r, order dated 29.04.2021 granted interim direction as prayed for in I.A.No. I of 2021. However, this Court made it clear that any registration pursuant to the said interim order is only a provisional one ald the same is subject to the fina_l result of writ petition, and that the Petitioners shall not claim any equities in the event any adverse orders are passed against them and no equities would accrue to the purchasers.

¶35

In view of the fact that the petitioners are seeking permission to withdraw ttre writ petition, any registration that had taken place in respect to the subject property after order dated 29.04.2021 passed by this Court shall

¶36

¶37

¶38

stand cancelied and the respondent No.6 shall take

¶39

necessary consequential steps.

¶40

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶41

withdrawn, with liberty as sought for.

¶42

As a sequel, miscellaleous applications, if any

¶43

pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶44

To,

¶45

SD/-L.SIVA PARVATHI ASSIST RAR n2

¶46

//TRUE COPY// L ER

¶47

1 . lryg CQlto cP FOR STAMPS ANDREG|STRAT|ON,High Court for the State of Telangana,at HyderabadlOUTl 2. Two CCs to Gp FOR E|{DOWIMENTS.High Court for the State of Telan^gana,at Hyderabad[OUT] " 43. One CC to SRr. NARESH 1E^OP-Y.CIryNOLLA, Advocate [OpUC] qne qq to SR|.K. JAGAN MoHAN REDDY, Advocii"lopUCf^{- -'} . Two CD copies

rbt}-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2711212022

ORDER

WP.No.11450 ot 2021

'r
1 E, rq
.<br>e
t,
d 2t tAilzt?l
*<br>l:
i)

¶56

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

Qur-

Sri Veerannagari Gautham Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Veerannagari Gautham Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Shafiuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

M.M. Vasu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Rushi Health Care Services and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Sri Veerannagari Gautham Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Veerannagari Gautham Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Veerannagari Gautham Reddy Vs The State of Telangana