The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 as infructuous. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the cause no longer existed, and no order as to costs was passed.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABOO[,.0'] (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER_ TWO THOUSAND AND TI/VENTY TWo PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
Between:
WRIT PETITION N O: 525 OF 2008
Smt.K.Parmeshwari. Wo.Late K.Venkat Rao R/o.Door No. 12_8_417, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue Rure Nisi cailing for the records reading upto and incrusive of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in case No.B/3566 of 2007, dated 7.01 .2008 and quash the same by issuing writ of Certiorari
t.A. NO: 1 0F 2008 WPMP, NO: 589 0F 2008
Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of all further proceedings incruding the eviction of the petitioner from the premises bearing No.12-8-417 situated at mettuguda, secunderabad in pursuance of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in case No.8/3566 0f 2007 dated 7.1 .2008
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. M. MEHDI HUSSAIN
Counsel for the Respondent No.1to3: Gp FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: cp FOR LAND AceUlSlTlON
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARA?H
WRIT PETITION No.525 of 2OO8
ORDER:
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and thereby the Writ Petition has become infructuous.
SD/- P. PAOMANABHA REDDY //TRUE coPYttASSISTffiREGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFTCER
Bsc
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 5t12t2022
ORDER
WP.No.525 of 2008
i si4 ,€'
(
()J
(J 0 3 JAil 2023 z
al-'.. {)
\r'^
tYt..'
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
-+ --{' lg\tz s9?
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication.
Smt. K. Parmeshwari
The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad
The Tahsildar
The Spl. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
