Dismissed

Sri. Bolishetty Chinna Rajaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Feb 2022WP/1666/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant sought mandamus against police authorities for the illegal inaction in considering a land protection application. The High Court held that as the police had already acted upon the complaint, the cause of action ceased to exist, and the petition could not be adjudicated.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Bolishetty Chinna Rajaiah Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

WRIT PETITION O: 1666 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri. Bolishetty Chinna Rajaiah, S/o. Brahmaiah, Age.^{65 years, Occ: Agriculture,} Rl/o. Dandepally Mandal and Village, Mancherial District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by its^Principal Secretary,^{Home Department,} Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner of^{Police, Mancherial,Manchenal District.}

¶12

The Station House Otficer, Dandepally P.S., l,4ancherial,^{Mancherial Districl,}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under^pt.licle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in^the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be pleased} to issue a appropriate writ, order or orders, more^particularly one^{in the nature of writ} of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent^{Nos. 2} to^{3 in not considering} the application of the^petitioner dated 07-01-2020^{is illegal,arbitrary, unconstitutional} and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of^{lndia and} consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to 3 to^protect the land^of the^{petitioner in} Survey No. t79 to an extent of Ac 3-19^guntas situated at Karnapet^Village, Dandepally Mandal, Mancherial District while considering the application^dated 07-01-2020.

¶15

lA NO: 'l OF 2021

¶16

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 issue a direction to the Respondent No.2 to 3 to give Police aid to the existing crop in Survey No, 179 to an extent of Ac 3-'19 guntas situated at Karnapet Village,

¶17

¶18

Dandepally Mandal, Mancherial oistrict^{while consideringtheapplicationdated 07-}

¶19

01-2020^pending disposal^{of the WritPetition.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI' POCHAIAH DORISHETTI}

¶21

counsel forthe Respondents :^{AGPFOR HOME}

¶22

The Court made the following^{: ORDER}

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO,1666 OF 2021

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in considering the application,^dated 07.O1.2020 of the^petitioner, as arbitrary,^illegaland consequently direct the respondent^{Nos.2 and 3 to protect the} land of the^petitioner in Survey^{No.179 to an extent of Ac.3-19} guntas, sltuated at Karnapet Village, Dandepally Mandal, Mancherial District, by considering the application,^dated 07.01.2020, of the^petitioner.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the^petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing^for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and^perused the record.

¶30

In the' course of submissions,^{Iearned Assistant} Government Pleader for Home brought to the^{noticeof this Court} that the respondent-^police have acted upon the^{complaint,dated} 07.O1,2020, of the^petitioner and therefore,^{nothing survivesFor} adjudication in the Writ Petition.

¶31

The said submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is taken on record.

¶32

Since it is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the complaint, dated 07.01.2020 filed by the petitioner was acted upon, the cause in the writ^petitiondoes not survive for adj ud ication.

¶33

¶34

With the above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of. However,. the petitioner is at liberty to workout the remedies

¶35

availa ble under law.

¶36

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition

¶37

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTAUIREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Ctt r SECTTON OFFICER

¶39

To, '1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,^{Mancherial, Mancherial District.}

¶40

The Stdtion House Officer, Dandepally^{P.S., Mancherial, Mancherial District.}

¶41

One CC to SRl. POCHAIAH DORISHETTI,^Advocate. [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to AGP FOR HOME,^{High Court forthe State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUTI 6. Two CD Copies

¶42

One Spare Copy

N.-k

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/0212022

1 HE STrl
o;<br><br>.-<br>-)
.
c.) 15 Fjl8 202
!

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No.1666 of 2021

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

\l5' ?J-^\2

Sri. Bolishetty Chinna Rajaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Bolishetty Chinna Rajaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Prakasa Rao, Vs The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank

Kandimalla Raghuma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Uppari Sattaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Managing Committee Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Tekumatla Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Jarpula Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana