A writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the inaction of respondents regarding a layout approval was dismissed as the petitioner withdrew the petition and sought liberty to approach alternative remedies.
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies available under law.
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 OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTHDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHAKANNEGANTI
WRIT PE TITION NO: 900 OF 2022
Betwee n:
J Amarnath, S/o J Bala Chandraiah, Agedabout50 years, Occ' Government Teacher, R/o H No 9-127,9ri Rangapur,Mandal and Village,Wanaparthy District Tela nga na.
...PETITIONER
AND
Petition under Article 226 oflhe Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court maybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directionmore in the nature of lvandamus, declaring the in action ofrespondents moreparticularly that of respondents 2, 3 and 4 on series ofcomplaints against respondents 5 and 6 for violating the temporary approvalfor layout comprising of 42 plots vide Lr. Roc.No 74Ot2O21IHRO/H1 dated 22.06.2021by de-categorizing, under categorizing also by lessening the length andbreadth of the same by sub-dividingthem,while
commencingregistrationscontrary to the conditions laid down in the draft technicallayoutvideDraft-TLPNo159/202,1/HRo/lllaSwellforobtainingNALA Conversion forGovernmentR & BRoad under deliberatefraudulent misrepresentationof facts, pending the representations of petitionerdated 12.OB.2O21,26.08.2021,andthelatestbeingon22'11'2O2llotakeactionin terms ofChapterV, Section 172 (16) of the MunicipalAct 20'19 as beingas being lllegal,ArbitraryUnConstitutional,beingviolativeofArticles2land300A,against the Letterand spirit of Catenaof Judgments rendered by this Honorable Courtas well that ofHonourabre supreme court of rndia apart from being violative of principles of naturalJusticeand Fair play and consequentiaily initiate actionon respondents4 and 5 in termsof section172 (15' 16' and 17) of lt'4unicipal Act 2O1g bycancellingthe draft technicallayout vide Draft-TLPNo 159120211HRO1111.
lA NO:1oF 2022
Petition underSection 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto direct respondents2 to 4 to ensure actionon respondent No 5 and 6 from proceeding any furtherwithexecutingany sale' gift' mortgage' conveyance'or anyothermodeofconveyancerecognizedunderlawbysubdividingtheplotsin draft technicallayout vide Draft-TlPNo 159/2021lHROl111spread over temporaryapproval for layoutcomprising of 42 plots vide Lr' Roc No 74Ol2O21lHRO/Hldated22.06.2021inSvNos65iA1/1and65lA112of SrirangapurVillage, Wanaparthy district pending the disposalof presentwrit petition.
Counselfor the Petitioner :SRl' IMMANENI RAMARAO
Counsel forthe Respondents1 & 2: GP FORMCPL ADMN URBANDEV Counselfor the Respondent3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counselfor the Respondent 4: C' KALYAN RAO' SC FOR GRAM PACHAYATH Counselfor the Respondent5 & 6: G' MADHUSUDHANREDDY
The Courtmade the following: ORDER
/.
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 9O0 oF 2022
ORDER:
Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel for the petitioner has circulated the letter dated 04.04.2022 to the Registry to list the Writ petition under the caption Tor withdrawal' as his client wa.nts to withdraw ttle same with liberty to avail alternative remedies available under law. Hence, it is Iisted today.
- The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automati caJly closed.
\
To,
SD/.I,NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII 4u SECTION OFFICER
1 2 One CC to SRt. |MIVANEN| RAMA RAO Advocate IOPUC] I5:.ffii:,s,irioR MCPL novr'r unin'r'j oiui.+Eii,ir courr for rhe state of J. Pn" 99to C.Kalyan Rao(scfor Gram panchayath) 4. 4 9nu 99ro c.MadhusudhanReddy IOpUCi-,-' ', Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy NN SB
q
HIGH COURT
DATED:2710412022
ORDER
WP.No.900 ot 2022
l rli 5 r.c, r€
( o.
q
(ito 2 i JilN 2IJ22 Z
L
DI P/\IC f'.'
DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN
WITHOUT COST
@.re8
%o.--,
-t{A*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition could be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner.
What should be the consequences of withdrawal of the petition.
J Amarnath
The State of Telangana
Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning
The Srirangapur Gram Panchayath
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
