Petitioners challenged a resumption order regarding assigned land. The Court observed the underlying appeal was disposed of and the matter remitted, rendering the writ petition infructuous, and dismissed it.
Petition dismissed as infructuous to the extent of seeking prohibition of land inducting.
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.
[3303 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 1485 OF 2009
Between:
(Petitioners Nos.7 to 9 all are Rl/o H.No.8-3-167/8, Kalyannagar, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad.)
(Petitioners 7 to 9 are brought on record as Lr's of deceased 6hpetitioner as ierCourt Orderdt.09/08/20'12in WP.MP.No.24151l2O12) ...rar,r,O"=*,
AND
...RES'ONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased to issue order, direction or writ one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to induct 3rdpartiesin Plotf',1os.10' 11, 22' 23, 24, 25 and 28 in Sy.No.12l15, situatedat Patelguda, SangareddyMandal, t\ltedak District belonging to thepetitionerspendingdisposal of representation
//
made by the petitioners seeking restoration of possession and also appeal preferred by the petitioners under Sec.4(A) of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Acl 1977 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent not to induct 3r parties Plot Nos.'10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 28 situated at Patelguda, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009 {wP MP. NO: 1883 OF 2009)
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 respondents, not to induct 3rd parties Plot Nos.10, 11,22,23,24,25 & 28 situated at Patelguda, Sangareddy [Vlandal, Medak District pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO
Writ Petition No. 1485 of 2OO9
ORDER:
When the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri A.Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the respondent No.2 disposed the appeal hled by the petitioner and remitted the matter to respondent No.l by the order dated 22.01.2013. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 passed resumption order resuming the subject property Questioningthe said resumption order, petitioner filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.26497 of 2Ol7 and the same is pendiyrg.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANTRGISTRAR
\
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To 1 One CC to SRIA.NARASII/HARAO,AdvocateIOPqCI 2 i;; dc; t"-ci idnntvErluE, Hish courtfor the state of relangana' at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 Two CD CoPies
PSK. GJP s
I
l. L
I I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1811212023
ORDER
WP.No.1485 of 2009
STArE
16e
q
JA\ 2$2[ .ba
u
oo
t
t DEsP/:, f
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS. @c'P *F
D. Satyanarayana and others
State of Andhra Pradesh and others
J. Sreenivas Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
