Disposed

Gundu Narasimha Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC9 Feb 2023WP/27852/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a rejection of a stay application. The Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the pending revision petition within four months, staying the impugned orders and maintaining the status quo granted earlier.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No. 1 to dispose of the revision petition within four months and maintaining the status quo order granted on 04.07.2022.

Gundu Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

-;-';::+!,+#as#;-s'a.+-,i5i:r;;:;;;-.!ii:Fi+-+'-t!'-<,

¶2

+riE*=.i3jar=i;.::- "

¶3

[³³⁰³ ]

¶4

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

¶5

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS^RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 27852 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gundu Narasimha Rao, S/o. Sammaiah, aged 60^years, Occ. Agriculture Rl/o. E. Bayyaram Village, Pinapaka Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Prl. Secretary,^{Tribal Welfare Department} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

2 The Additional Agent to Govemment and Project^{Officer,l.T.D.A-} Bhadrachalam Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶15

3 The Special Deputy Collector^(Tribal Welfare),^{Bhadrachalam,Bhadradri} Kothagudem District

¶16

4 The Tahsildar, Pinapaka mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem^District

¶17

5 Yampati Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Konda Reddy Aged^{major,R/o. E. Bayyaram} Village, Pinapaka Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem^District

¶18

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ. Order or direction more^particularly one^{in the nature of} Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st^{respondentin reiecl,cnthe stay} application filed along with Revision Petition^{vide Memo No. 701/TW.LTR|2O221'} dated 31.05.2022 filed by the^{petitioner against the orders passed by the 2nd} respondent in CMA No. 2212021 dated 14.03.2022^{and the Order of the 3rd} respondent passed in LTR Case No.25l2020lPNK,^{dated 04-02.2021in respect} of the land to an extent of^{Ac.0.04gts in Sy No. 35 situatedat E Bayyaram} Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem^{District without givingany} opportunity to the^{petitioner straight} away^{rejected the stay petition filedalong}

¶20

with revision petitior before the^'1 st respondent is illegal, :r':ritrzrry and against the principles of nat rral justice and also violative of Articles 14. 19. 21 and 300A of Constitution o lndia by setting aside the Order date,C 31 .05.2022 and consequently direct he respondents not to interfere into the;reac,-.ful possession and enjoyment of thr subject property of the petitioners in th,: interest of^justice.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the rrirr;unrstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to grant STAY of op€ration of the Order passed in CMA No.2212021 daled 14.03.2022 and th€ Order of the 3rd respondent passetl n l-TR Case No. 25l2020lPNK, daled O4.42.2021 in respect of the land to an 3xtent of Ac.0.04 gts in Sy No. 35 situa ed at E. Bayyaram Village, Pinapaka lvlarrdal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District pending disposal of the main writ petitiorr

¶23

Counsel for the Peti ioner: SRl. KONDAPARTHI SRINIVASA

¶24

Counsel for the Res )ondent Nos. I to 4: GP FOR SOCIAL I|IELFARE

¶25

Counsel for the Res )ondent No.5:^:----

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I I I I i l

i I tI t I I

-3 / i: ti

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI/AS RAO WRIT PETITION No.278S 2 of 2022

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Governmcnt Pleader for Social Welfare.

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking writ o[ m;:lrrdamus dcclaring the order passed by the respondent No. I rn Mcmo No../Ot/'lW.LTR/2022-l dated, 31.O5.2022 rejccting the sray application while admitting the revisiorr pctrtron lllc:d bv the petitioner as illegal and arbitrarv.

¶34

I-earnt:d counsel for lhe petitioner contendcd thar th( pcliLi()itcrr liled revision petition before the respondcnl No I :tqgrit,r,ccl bv t he orde r passed by the responde nt Nr;,.2 in CMA No.22 t'tf 2O2l dated 14.O3.2O22 conlirmu-rg thc orclcr passecl b,v respondent No.3 in LTR Case Nrt.23/2.O)O /[)NI.:,, cl:rtcd 04.O2.2C-21 in rr:spect of lancl ro an cxrcnr oi Ac.O.0,1 glrntas in Survey No.35 situat_cd at l.l lfa-r'v:rram vil[:rgr', pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri l(oI ii;rgrrcl<.rn l )ist rt(.t

¶35

4, F{e [r-rrt lrcr submits that respondent No. I u.hile r.rclrnirring thc rcvisior-r petition re_jected the stav petiriorl \'rlfl()uL gir.,in;, l r-r.,. opJ)ortunity to the pCtltlon(.r. iln.l pr.rssccl impugnt.rl Memo No.70 I /'lW.LTR/2O22_ I cl.,rrcd

¶36

31.O5.2022. By^{virtue of thcrejectionof th':stzrY, the} respondcnL^{rlo-4 isLn ltlgLo take steps I'o/ 1cz tethe} peti Uoner f: om the subject^land. This 'lot-lrt on 04.o7.2022 qranted Status-Quo order and^{tll(: slmeis} continuing ti^{ll datc}

¶37

A rerusal of^{the record wouldreve zll thatthe} revision peti -ion^{l-iled bv thc petitioncr} IS pen <1 ng before respondent^{I tro.1}

¶38

In view oI the pc-ndcrrc-' of^{st:]tr.ltorr'rrlvislon,} without goin g into the merits of the^{casc,thrs 'r't it rletition} is disposed >f directing respondent^{No.1 to dir;posr: of the} revision^pe t. tion filed bv the^{pctitioneru ithinz: pt:riodof} four monthr lrom Lhe clatr: of rcctript^{of tl'le :i;py of this} order after I living^{opporturtit-vto the petitioner as wellas} respondents in the rcvisiott^{pctitiol.rinacco:clan:ew'ith} Iaw. Ttll su r:h limc thc St:ttr-rs Quo^{orclcr grar,lcd by this} Court on^O4 .O7.2022 shall continuc.^{No <:osts}

¶39

As a ;eqtrel thcrcto,^{tnisr:ell:rneous aplrlicar-ions,if} any, pe nd in 1in^{this writ pctilion,shalI stands ::o9:d}

¶40

,JI]/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSIST,{N-i^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,rcirilN^oFFlcER

¶41

To, '1 . The Prl. Secrel ary'^{'fribal Welfare Department Secretarial'} -l-he State of

¶42

' , ff'Jl%Xl,ill:i;;'i"ii" snr^{SnadraOri Government and Kothagudem District Prorect} ^,^{orricer' I -r 'D A'} "nrirr"irrf

¶43

1. The^{Special D )putv colle:';;ttit"' welfare)Bhadrachrti'm' Bhadradri} Kothagudem^{I istrlct}

¶44

¶45

The Tahsildar,^{Pinapaka mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District}

¶46

S. One CC to^{Sri. Kondaparthi Srinivasa' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶47

i;" ccs to^{Gp for Sociat wetfare,High court for the State of Telangana} touTI

¶48

Two CD CoPies

¶49

TJ SW Dv-

0 0

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910212023

ORDER

WP.No.27852 ot 2022

''<br>,l
+
,.:< ,J
t<br><' . '.,,
.- -a;-

¶56

DISPOSING^()F THE WRIT PETITION

¶57

cra)

¶58

WITHOUT C(ISTS.

¶59

@.*i., fY\ 4",

Gundu Narasimha Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundu Narasimha Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cherukumalli Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Print Time and Business Enterprises, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

M Laskhmikanthayya Vs State of Tg,Scy,Revenue,Hyd, am 5

Smt Mendem Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana

Sammaka sarakka Alaya Abhivrudhi Committe Vs The State of Telangana

Akkala Chinna Lachaiah, Vs the State of Telangana