Dismissed

Smt.G.Saraswathi Bai and 12 Others v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC9 Feb 2023WP/23428/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed two writ petitions questioning the cancellation of a sale deed and non-registration of fresh documents. The court dismissed the petitions on the grounds that the petitioners suppressed the pendency of an earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 5634 of 2017) raising identical issues, prompting the court to decline adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs; petitioners allowed to pursue rights in the pending earlier writ petition.

Smt.G.Saraswathi Bai and 12 Others Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

{

[³²⁵⁶ ]

] I I I i I I i

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Originat Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE^{NINTH DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{MUMMINENI SUOHEER KUMAR}

¶8

WRIT PETTTION^{NO: 8992 OF 20'18AND 23428 0F 2019}

¶9

wP NO.8992 0F 2^'t8:

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt.G.Saraswathi Bai,^{W/o.Late MallikariunaRao,Aged aboul} l2,.Veqr9' Q9c Housewife, R/o.H.No.19/1'l0,^{Nandimetta,Kurnool Mandal andMunrclpallly,} Kurnool District, A.P.

¶12

5;i.E;ah tnfiathamma,^{Wo.Late Endla Ramulu' Aged aboul68years..Occ} - ff",jsew,i", FUo.H.No.S-6t, Pochamma Temple, Raidurg village, Serilinoamoallv. Ranoareddv District.

¶13

a. Enoii-per{taiih, Sl6.mte'^{Endla Ramulu, Aged about55. years,...Occ} - Agricrltur., Ryb.H.No.S-OtlZ, Pochamma Temple, Raidurg village, serilinoamoallv. Ranqareddv District.

¶14

Endla^{-gab'frishna.} STo.gnOia^{Pentaiah, Agedabout 29 years,Occ Business,} Fl/o.H.No.5-61/2, Pochamma^{Temple, Raidurg village,Serilingampally'} Rangareddy District.

¶15

s. Smt]gnota'Sujatha, Wo.Late^{Endla. Munendgr' Aged a-bout} ]9^years,,occ Fbusewife, iVo.H.No.5-61,^{Pochamma Temple, Rai Durg village'} Serilinoampallv mandal and^{Municipality' RangareddyDistrict'}

¶16

Surendra Varina, S/o.M.Satyanarayana^{Raiu, Aged about 35 years, Occ} Business, F/o.Fiat No.205;^{Keshav estates' Kavuri Hills, Ivladhapur,} Hvderabad. Telanqana State.

¶17

Hvderabad. Telanqana State.

¶18

Z. NlCnaiaravarthy^-Raju, S/o.N.Rama^{Raiu' Aged ab-out31} .yqars'Qcc Business, Fyo.-H.No.i44419,^{HIG VPhase,KPHBColony-, Kukatpally,} Hvderabad. Telanoana State. Petitioners^{1 to 7 are rep.bytheir Absolute} Aqreement'of SaE and authorised^{signatory Ghouse(han} @ fg'g+-[!ql Sio.OutuOuOOln Khan, Aged^{32 years,-Occ Business,FVo.H.No9-4-4lBl10lA} N.S.F.Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

¶19

...pETt,oNERs

¶20

AND

¶21

The State of Telangana rep.,^{by its PrincipalSecretary to Stamps and} Registration Depar{ment, Secretariat^{Buildings-.Hyderabad.}

¶22

z. fn6 Commissioher, and^{inspector General of Registration and Stamps, State} of Telangana, MJ Market, HYderabad

¶23

The Dist"rict Fiegistrar,,^{Stam-ps andRegistrationat Ranga ReddyDiskict at} Sony Complex, kukatpally,^{Ranga Reddy Dstrict.}

¶24

4 The Sub R'eoisirar. Siambs and-Reqistrrtion^{Moosapet, Rangareddy District.}

¶25

s. - SnimJuOOin"AnmeO Slo AnmeO anO^grand daughter Late Dr.^{of Late H6sanuddin Ahmed, Md. RuknuddinAhmed and late and Mrs late Mrs. Anees AzizH} Fatima, Agei about 7fyears, Occ^{Business, No 22-1-957} '^{AzizBagh, Noor} Khan Bazar, Hyderabad 500024,^Telangana

¶26

R5 is impleaded as^{per Court Order dated2911112022in l'A No 1/2022DENTS} Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleasedtoissueawritorordermoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritof mandamus, declaring^{the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in cancelling} registeredsaledeedbearingDocumentNo.2Blgl1991dt.06.04'1991without following due^{process of law and without giving notice prior to cancellation of the} registeredsaledeedofthepetitionersvideMemo.No.GENlT90l2ol4,daled 16.O7.2O14andDRNo.4000/G1/20l4,dated01.06.2014asillegal,arbitrary' unjustandalsoagainsttheprovisionsofRegistrationAct,lg0Bandalsoagainst theprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandSetasidetheMemo.No.GEN/790/2014'dated 16.o7.2o14andDRNo.4000/G,1/2014,dated01.06.2014inrespectof petitioners landed^{property covered by Survey No'No'83/1admeasuring Ac 5 00} guntas situated at^{RaYadurg Pan} lr4aktha Village, Sherlingampally^Mandal, Ranga ReddY District

¶27

A NO:^'l OF 2018

¶28

Petition under Section^{151CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspend the^{impugned Memo. No GENt790t2014,dated 16 07'2014 and DR No} 4OOO]G1t2O14, dated^{01.06.2014in raspectof petitionerslanded property} covered by Survey^{No.No B3/1 admeasuring Ac' 5'00 guntas situatedat} Rayadurg Pan Maktha^{Village, Sherlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District} issued by the respondents^{2 and 3, pending disposalof the abovewrit petition}

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶30

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} permit the petitioners to file the^{following documentsi.e., 1) The Proceedings} Bl5gt2o12 dated 30-4-201 2^{issued by the Tahsidlar, Serilingampallymandal,} Rangareddy District, 2) The^{Proceedings R.C.No.Bl59l2012-4daled2-6-2012} issued by the Tahsitllar (Deputy Collector cader), Serilingampally^mandal, Rangareddy Distnct, 3) The Proceedings of No.G/3719/2013 dated 27^-8-2013 issued by the Special crade Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella

¶31

Division, Rangareddy^{District,4) The Proceedingsof No'G/3719/2013 dated 27'} 8-2013^{issued by the Special Grade Colleclorand RevenueDivisional Officer'} ChevellaDivision,RangareddyDistrict(38-E),5)pattedarpassbooks,6)copyof panchanama conducted^{by Tahsihar(Deputy Collector Cader)'Serilingampally} mandal,^{RangareddyDistrict along with sketch daied12-6-2012'7) copyot} village Account^{pahanidated 26-6-1993' 8) Land use informationletter} No.103784-LU/P5/HMDAdated28-11.2014and9)Noticeofawardu/s.37(2)of Act30of2013videFileNo.C/494/SRDP/2017daled4-4-2OlBandNoticeu/s. 38(1) of L.A.Act^{30 of 2013 videFile No'C/494/SRDP12O17dated 4-4-20'18 as} additional^{material papersin W'P'No'S992ot 2018 on the file of thisHon'ble} Court

¶32

Counsel for^{the Petitioners:SRIG' KALYANCHAKRAVARTHY}

¶33

Counsel for^{RespondentNos' 1 to 4: GP FORREVENUE}

¶34

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 5: SRIE' AJAYREDDY' SENIOR COUNSELFOR} M/s. E. ANISHA^REDDY

¶35

WP NO: 23428^{0F 2019}

¶36

Between:

¶37

Smt.G.Saraswathi^{Bai, Wo'LateMallikarj-unaRao, Aged7p. Years'. .Occ'} ' iloii.-"n"o-rOl nyo.Fr.No.i'SliOO, Nandimela, Kumool mandal and Municipality. -fuo.Late-EnOla Ram.ulu' Aged 6-8 years' occ'

¶38

z Srnt.g"Jri'Tirupathamma, - Foijr"norO, nyoin.S+t, F6ct amma Temple, Raidurg village, Serilingamaplly 3.^{'i;i;-'P;nEAh,} ma ndal. RangareddY^{'s/o.iate District.Endla Ramulu,} -^Ased 'qoYl^s5 Yg-T' - oii.Aoriculture, Rl/o.H.5_61, pochamma Temple, Rardurg vr age. Serilin6amaplly^{mandal, Rangareddy District'}

¶39

4 Eili;'B;h[#nna,^{slo.Enoia Peniaiah,Aged29 vears' occ' agriculture'} Rio.H.No.5-6t/2,^{Raidurgamvillage,Serilingampallyman0al' Kangareooy} District.

¶40

s 5rii.'-Enora Suiatha,^{W/o.Late EndlaMunender'^Aged} 19--Y991--o:9

¶41

Aousehold, Ryo.tt.No.S-6t Z, RaUurgam village, Senlingampally maooar'

¶42

G Ranoareddv il:s;il;;i District.^{-t;H;, s/o.M.satvanaravana Raiu,. ngeo} .?9^Ye.a.rsr.occ Business, Rl/o.Flat^{No.205, Keshav Estates, KavurlHllls' Maonapur'} Hvderabad.

¶43

z itilcnilirliirthv Raiu,^{S/o.N.Ramaraju' Aged 29 vears'occ'. Business'} ' iii" n.iti".rZql6, r-rid, V-pnrase, KPHB'Colonv, Kukatpallv, Hvderabad'

¶44

TheoetitionersltoTarerep.bytheirAbsoluteAgreementofsaleand .^{Khan3/o Qutubuddin- Khan'} Allihffd; .iluiori^{e n6r.. -ki #} o -ftp< Aoed about 35 vears, oli.^{-gusinesiRio'H No'9-4-4lBl10lA' NSFColony'} fErl"noralii Ha ke'empet'^{Hyderabad,Telangana State'}

¶45

B. M/s. JK Constructions, Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Syed Abdul Muqtadar S/o.Late Syed Abdul Jaleel, Aged about 48^years, Occ. Business,^Rl/o. H.No.8-'1-329/A/1 /19, Koh-E-Sar colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad.

¶46

llyas lbrahim, S/o.Abdul Khadar Shaik, Aged about 51^years, Occ. Business, Ryo.H.No.8-1-363/68/4, Aditya Nagar Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

¶47

10.Syed Abdul Muqtadar, S/o.Late Syed Abdul Jaleel, Aged^{about51 years,Occ.} Blsiness, Fl/o.H No.8-1-3291N1l4lB, Koh-e-sar Colony,^{Near MalikCars} service centre, Shaikpet, Hyderabad.

¶48

ll.Mohammed Abdul Rasheed Hassan Jabri, S/o.^{AbdulRasheedJabri, Aged} about 19 years, Occ. Student, R/o.H.No.10-4-1^{1/8/A, Humayun Nagar, Masab} Tank, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

¶49

'12.Mrs Naheed-Sultaira, W/o.Abdul Rasheed Jabri, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.no.10-4-1 1/8/A. Humayun^{Nagar, Masab Tank' Asifnagar,} Hvderabad.

¶50

13.M'antena Siva Rama Raiu,^{S/o.SatyanarayanaRaju Mantena, Aged about39} vears. Occ. Business. RJo.Flat No.306, Block^{No.6, Diamond Estates'Ram} futurthy Nagar, Kukatpally, Rangareddy^{District-500085 rep.by} lis^Agreement of sali: hoider Cum Authorised^{signaiory i.e., Ghouse Khan} @^{Feroz Khan} S/o.Qutubuddin, Aged^{about34 years,Obc.Business, R/o'H.No.9-4-4lBl1ol1'} NSF Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

¶51

...pETrrtoNERS

¶52

AND

¶53

The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Principal Secretary. to Stamps and} Registration Department, Secretariat^{Building:' Hyder-abad.}

¶54

Thd Commissioher and^{lnspector General of Registration And Stamps, State} of Telangana, M.J.Market,^Hyderabad.

¶55

The Disirict {egistrar, Stamfs^{and Registration, Rangareddy District at Sony} complex, Kukatpally,^{RangareddyDistrict.}

¶56

The^{'Sub-Regisirar,'stamps and Registration Department, RangareddyDistrict} at Sony Complex Moosapet,^Hyderabad.

¶57

Shamstddin hnmed S/o^{LateDr Hasanuddin Ahmed,, and late Mrs. AneesH} Ahmed and^grand daughter^{of Late Md.Ruknuddin Ahmed and late Mrs. Aziz} Fatima, Aged about 72-years.^{Occ Business} ,^{No 22-1-957, Aziz Bagh, Noor} Khan Bazar, Hyderabad 500024,^Telangana.

¶58

R5 is impleaded as^per Court^{Orderdated2911112022 in l.A.No.1l2O22} ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order more^particularly one in the^{nature of writ of} mandamus declaring the action of the^{respondents 3 and 4 in not registering and} releasing pending documents No.1678 of^{2O19dated18-10-2019and No.14822 of} 2O18 dated 31-8-2018 in favour of the^{petitioners inspite of suspensionorders} granted by this Honourable court in l.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.8992^{ot 2019} dated 30-9-2019 suspending the Memo No GEN/ 79012014 dated'16-7-2014 and Dr.No.4000/G112014 dated 1-6-2014 in respect of the petitioners landed property covered by survey No.83/1 admeasurrng Ac.5.00 situated at Raidurg panmaktha village, seriringampaly mandar, Rangareddy District issued by the respondents 3

¶59

: i I

¶60

and4aSillegal'arbitrary'unjustandalsoagainsttheprovisionsofRegistration ActlgOsandalsoagainstArticlel4,lgand300Aconstitutionoflndia

¶61

IA NO:¹ 0F²⁰¹⁹

¶62

Petition under^{Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in} theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtodirect therespondentstoregisterandreleasethependingdocumentsNo..l6T8of2ol9 dated 18-10-2019^{and No.',l48220f 2018dated 3'l-8-2018in favour of the} petitioners inspite of suspension^{orders granted by this Honourable court in} t.A.No.1 of 2019^{in w.P.No.8992 ot 2019 dated 30-9-2019 suspending the Memo} No.GEN/ 7gol2o14^{dated ',I6-7-20'14and Dr.No.40001G112014dated 1-6-2014in} respect of the^{petitionerslanded propertycovered by survey No.83i I admeasuring} Ac.5.00 situated at^{RaidurgPanmakthavillage, Serilingampallymandal,} Rangareddy District^{pendingdisposal of the above writ petition}

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI G' KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY}

¶64

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 4: GP FORSTAMPS AND REGISTRATION}

¶65

Counsel for Respondent No.^{5: SRI E. AJAYREDDY' SENIOR COUNSELFOR} M/s. E. ANISHA REDDY

¶66

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

I i i I i I 1 ; i

i I I t ! I I I I I

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶71

WRIT PETITION NOs.8992 OF 2018 AND 23428 OF 2019

¶72

COMMON ORDER:

¶73

As the property, which is lhe subject matter of these two Writ Petitions, is one and thr: same and arising out of the very same fact situation, both thr: Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶74

W.P.No.8992 ol 2018 is lLlcd questioning the acLion of the respondents 2 to 4 in cancclling the registered sale deed, dated 06.04.1991 vide documenl No.28^{19/ 199} I through^Memo No.GEN/79OI2O14 dirrccl 16.07.2014 and

¶75

DR.No.4OOO/G I l2Ol4 datecl O I .06.2014 in respect of^landed propcrty situatecl in Survey No E3/ i admeasuring Acs.5.00^gts of Rai Durg Pan Mzrkthzr Vill;rge, Sherilingampally^Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegirl and arbitrary.

¶76

A learned Singlc Judgc. h;rving taken note of the fact that no counter affidavit u'as filcd by then, by an order dated 30.09.2019, granted interirn suspension of the impugned memos daLed 16.07.2O14 anrl O1.06.2014. Taking the benefit of the interim suspcnsion gr:rn recl in W.P.No.8992 of 2O18, the petitioners claimt:d to h:lve sL.Lbnritted thc conveyance deeds for registration in favour of rhe pt'trrior-rers 8 to l3 in W.p.No.2342g

¶77

' *.p.xo".Ts"*Jor zor.e & 2342A OF 2019 of 2Ol9 and as the^{respondent-SubRegistrar kept the said} documents pending^{without processingthesame for} registration, the^{petitionersin W.P.No.8992 of 2018 along with} the purchasers filed^{W.P.No.23428 of 2Ol9 questioning the} action o[ the^{respondent-Sub Registrar inkeeping the} documents pending^{without processingthe same.}

¶78

Though the petitioners Iiled^{W.P.No.8992of20 18} questioning the Memos dated^{16.07.2014 and Ol.06.2014,} copies of the same are^{not filed by the petitionersalong with the} Writ Petition. The {lfth respondent^{herein came on record by} hling an implead application and the^{petitionersherein have} expresscd their'no objection'for^{the fifth respondent to comeon} record in both the^{Writ Petitions.The frfth respondent brought} to the noticc ol this Court that^{the frrst petitionerin both the} Writ Petitions, t-ramely Smt. G. Saraswathi^{Bai, on an earlier} occasion, filcd^{W.P.No.5634 of 2Ol7 with the following prayer:-}

¶79

"...to issue an apPropriate order, writ or direction^more particularty a lvrit in the nature of Mandamus^{declaring the} proceedrngs No aOOO/Gl/2014 dr.L-8.2O14^{issuedby the2"d} iespondent under Registration^{and StamPs Act as informedin} Irtter No.2golRTllGl l2016^{dt.26.9.2o16 by the 3d respofldent} including the endorsemenl^{dt.l7.ll.2014 on the saledeed} bearing document No.2819/I991^{dt.6.4.1991 as illegal,without} authority of law and^{consequentlyto s€t asidethe same, and} pass such other further orders as this Hontrle^{Court maydeem} fit and proper rn the^{circumstancesof the case."}

¶80

A copy o[ the said^{proceedingsdated01.08.2014is also placed} on rccord by^{the hfth respondent. A perusalof the said}

MSK,J

W.P.NOs.8992 OF 2()18 &,23424 OF 2019 proceedings shows that, consequent upon a^judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of A.P. v. N.Audikesava Reddyr and Omprakash Verma v. State of A.P.2, various registered documents were cancelled and necessary endorsements rvere made on the encumbrance certificates^{of the} respective documents inclucling the sale deed dated 06.04.¹⁹⁹¹ vide document No.2819/199i through^{which the petitioners in} both the Writ Petitions are^{claiming right over the landin} question.

¶85

Questioning^{the said lctter dated 01.08.2014,the first} petitioner herein filed W-P.No.5634 of 2Ol7^{and the sameis} pending for consideration before a learned^{SingleJudge of this} Court and the same^{was stated} to^{have heard in-part as on} date. Suppressing the fact ol^{pcnclcncy o[ the said Writ Petition,} the hrst petitioner, along uitlr tht:^{other pelitioners, firled these} two Writ Petitions.

¶86

The relief sought in^W.P.No.8992 of^{2Ol8 is, in fact,} substantially the same as^{thc relict sought for in W.P.No.5634of} 2017 though the phraseologr. is^{mouldedin differentfashion.} Ultimately, the subject malt('r o[^{W.P.No.8992of 2O18 is the} validity of the letter^{viclc DR. No.4000/G I} l2Ct14^dated

¶87

t l2oo2 L ScC 227

¶88

, (2O10' 13 SCC 1s8

¶89

4 MSK,J W.P.NOs.8992 OF 2018 & 23424 OF 2019

¶90

01.O8.2O14 and the cancellation of sale deed dated 06.04.1991.

¶91

But, for the reasons best known, the petitioners have suppressed the pendency ot W.P.No.5634 of 2077 before this Court.

¶92

The relief sought for in W.P.No.23428 of 2O19 is, in fact, a consequential relief consequent upon interim suspension granted by this Court in W.P.No.8992 of 2018. Even in this Writ Petition also, the petitioners have not disclosed about the pendency of W.P.No.5634 ot 2Ot7 filed by the first petitioner. Even otherwise, as the petitioners are claiming the benefit of interim suspension granted by this Court in W.p.No.g992 of 2018, the petitioners ought to have hled appropriate application in the said Writ Pe tition itsclf instead of filing a separate Writ Petition. No plausible explanation is coming forth from the petitioners for not disclosing thc pendency of W.p.No.5634 of 2Ol7 filed by the first petitioner herein.

¶93

B. Though Mr. E. Ajay Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thc fifth respondent, made elaborate submissions on the merits o[ thc case by drawing attention of this Court to various land ceiling proceedings and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that all these aspects nced not be considered for disposal of these two

¶94

¶95

5 MSK,J W.p.NOs.8992 OF 2O1B &, 2342a OF 2019 Writ Petitions and these t$,o Writ petitions are liable to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case. on factual aspects.

¶96

In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain these two Writ Petitions, as the petitioners have suppressed the fact of pendency of W.p.No.5634 of 2{Jt lZ filed by the first petitioner wherein similar issues are raised. on the very same factual scenario.

¶97

Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, it is open for the petilioners to pursue and agitate their rights, if any, in the pending W.P.No.5634 of 2017.

¶98

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶99

applications, ifany, pending shall stand closecl.

¶100

SO/. K. AM

¶101

ASSISTANT REGIS AR

¶102

//TRUE COPY// SECTION FICER

¶103

To,

¶104

One CC to Sri G Kalyan Chakravarthy Advocate [OPUC]

¶105

Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3. One CC to Smt. E. Anisha Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)

¶106

Two CD Copies

MBC GJPd

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910212023

v1E S T4 14-
O 11 itAY 2$23
c'
\

¶111

COMMON ORDER

¶112

WP NO: 8992 OF 2018 AND 23428 OF 2019

¶113

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS

¶114

WITHOUT COSTS

Smt.G.Saraswathi Bai and 12 Others v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.G.Saraswathi Bai and 12 Others v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damera Ramsudhakar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Bommala Srinivas Vs The state of Telarigana

Lanka Rajaram Vs Syed Saleemuddin

Smt. a. Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana, And 4 Others

Mrs. Vislavath Chavali Vs State of Telangana

Yekula Amrutham Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others