Dismissed

Vattam Rambabu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Apr 2022WP/5201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to declare the rejection of a stay application illegal. The Court found the petitioner had suppressed the existence of a subsisting interim injunction order in a separate suit, rendering the petition non-maintainable, while directing the authority to expedite the pending revision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the authority was directed to dispose of the pending revision within three months.

Vattam Rambabu Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5201 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vattam Rambabu, S/o Pichaiah(ST) Age 46 years, Prop Sri Vidya High School At Rajeevgandhinagar, Bandarugudem Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary (Tribal Welfare) Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The Additional Agent to Government, (T.W) Bhadrachalam, BhadradriKothagudem Dist.

¶12

The Special Deputy Collector (T.W), Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist.

¶14

Bandari Ramesh, S/o Bazaru R/o Bandarugudem Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradrikothagudem Dist

¶15

Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Director, Chaitanya Techno School R./o Bandarugudem Village, Manuguru Mandal Bhadradrikothagudem Dist.

¶16

i. Smt.Karam Ramulalmma, Wo Venkaiah R/o Vippala Singaram Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradrikothagudem Dist.

¶17

(Respondent Nos 5 to 7 are not necessary parties, since no relief was granted in their favour, however shown as formal^parties)

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in Memo NO.1368/TW.LTN2O21-1 dt

¶20

1Ol1l2O22 rejecting stay application while admitting r,lvision petition filed on 5l1Ol2O21 filed against the order passed by the 2nd respondent dl17l9l2O21 in C.M.A.No.2/2015 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of prirrciples of rratural justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled tc continue in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.132 lo an extent of Ac.2-O4 gts situated at Bandarugudem Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kotragudem Dist., pending disposal of the revision on the file of the 1st respondent,

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the t;ircumstan,:es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be, pleased to vacate the interim order dated 01.02.2022, to meet the ends of^justice

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 15 1 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the dispcssession of the^petitioner from his land in Sy.No.13;2 to an extent of Ac.204 gts situated at Bandarugudem Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist..,^pending disposal of the writ^petition

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI.MMMSRINIVASARAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 1 to 3} : GP FOR SOCIAI- WELFARE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 4}

¶28

Counsel for the ResPondent^{No. 7} ADVOCATE

¶29

GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

SRI SANDEEP h:UMAR^BADLA,

¶31

The Court made the^following

¶32

: ORDER

¶33

THE HON'tsI-E SRI IUSTICE^{A. ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.5201 of 2022

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

IJeard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government

¶37

Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, the leamed Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.4, and Sri Sandeep Kumar Bodla, the leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.7. Witl'r their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission

¶38

Seeking to^.declare the order passed by the respondent No.1 oidr Memo No. 136 8 / TW .LTR / 2027-7, dated 70.0L.2022, whereby the respondent No.1, while admitting the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner has \ rejected the stay applicatiory as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition

¶39

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7 has stated that the respondent No.7 has filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and two others aide O.S.No.fOe of 201.5 on the file of the leamed Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Special Assistant Agent to Govemment, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the interirn injunction order dated 04.07.2015, passed by the leamed Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Special Assistant Agent

¶40

r-----

¶41

¶42

to Government, in t.A.No.l25 of 2015 in O.S.No.106 of 2015, and ha; stated

¶43

that the said interim injunction order is still in subsistence.

¶44

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the wlit petition shows

¶45

that the petitioner has suppressed the above said fact and filed the present writ petition.

¶46

Having regard to the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismisst:d. Howe''zer, the authority concernecl shall endeavour to dispose of the .levision I'etition filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, prererably, within a period of tfuee months from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, i{ any pending, shall stand closed There

¶48

shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

SD/-PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANRT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SI:CTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Principal secretary^{(Tribal welfare)secretariat,The Slateof Telangana} HYderabad

¶55

The Additional^{Agent to Government, (T.W) Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-} Kothagudem^Dist.

¶56

3.TheSpecialDeputyCollector(T.W),Bhadrachalam,Bhadrzrdri-Kothagudem Dist.

¶57

The Tahsildar,^{Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem[)ist'}

¶58

5.BandariRamesh,S/oBazaruRl/oBandarugudemVillage,lvlanuguruMandal, Bhadradrikothagudem^Dist

¶59

VUaya Bhaskar^{Reddy,Managing Director' ChaitanyaTechrroSchool fUo}

¶60

d;i;,"s;Jem Villaglj, Manu"gu-ru Mandal Bhadradrikothagudem Dist'

¶61

T.Smt.KaramRamulalmma'W/oVenkaiahR/oVippalaSingalamVillage, Manuguru Mandal,^{Bhadradrikothagudem Dist'}

fr\or lr"t

Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE,H|gh Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶66

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the state of Telangana At Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶67

{

¶68

One CC to SRI SANDEEP KUMAR BADLA Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

12.Two CD Copies

¶70

One Spare Copy

MSL

GJP @/

I I

I t

t t

HIGH COURT DATED:1910412022

¶80

ORDER

¶81

WP.No.5201 of 2022

¶82

Ol'
a-
qe $
-l
--,:,.

¶83

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶84

WITHOUT COSTS

¶85

I
<br>

¶86

I \

Vattam Rambabu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vattam Rambabu 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

P. Kishore Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

The Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited. Vs The State of Telangana

Bollagani Nageswar Rao, And 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Erukula Ellaiah and 109 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Sri Vijayalaxmi Girijana (St) Isuka quarry Labour Contract Mutual Aided Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kolan Prathap Reddy Vs The State of Telengana