Allowed

Indira Dochania, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs. v. the State of Tg.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/31781/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Hyderabad, allowed a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC, setting aside an impugned proceeding dated 22.09.2015. The court observed that this specific proceeding was previously quashed in W.P.No.31767 of 2015 and accepted the government pleader's concession on that fact to dispose of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceeding No. F/6606/2015 dated 22.09.2015 was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

Indira Dochania, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE SJATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecrat Oiiginat^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

I/IONDAY,^{THE ELEVENTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEMUMMINENISUDHEER KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT P ETITION^{No.3178 1 0F 2015}

¶7

Between:

¶8

lndira Dochania'^{W/o.ViiayDochanta' Aged about 44 years' Occ: House Wife} R/o. Road No.12.^{Banlara HillsHyderabao'}

¶9

Raiesh^{Agarwal, S/o. VishwanathAgarwalAged about 47 years'Occ:} - ijJiri,i".r,'nlo. U.f.ro.i-Z-A"|Z,'?iri r'ro"ZOt, Sai Shivam Legend Apartments Domalguda,^HYderabad.

¶10

Saniav Aqarwal,^{S/o.Suraj PrasadAgarwal' Aged aboul47 years' Occ:} Business,-F/o.^{1 -239AI 1, Domalg uda, Hyderabad'}

¶11

4.RavinderKumar,S/o.lateSri.KishanLalji,Agedabout48years'Occ: BusinessRl/o.FlatNo.402,KundanbaghApartmentBegumpet,HyderaDao'

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by^{its Secretary, Revenue Secretariat Buildings,} Hyderabad.

¶15

2 The Chief Commissioner for.Land Administration,^{Nampally,Hyderabad.}

¶16

3 The District Collector, tVledak District.

¶17

4 The Revenue Divisional, Officer, Siddipet tvledak District.

¶18

E The Thahasildar, Gajwel Medak District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action respondent No.4 in passing the impugned Proc. No. F/6606/2015 Dated: 22-09-2015 as being arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Art.14 and 21 of The Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned order passed by the 4rh respondent.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20 1s(w PMP. NO:41 086 0F 2015)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circLms ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High (lourt miry tre pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order proc No.F/6f 06/2015 Dated: 22-09-2015 passed by the 4rh Respondent.

¶23

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(Wf,MP. NO: 41087 OF 2015

¶24

Petition under S ection 15'1 CPC praying that in ttre circ urnst;lnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r.ray b: pleased to stay the operation of tl e impugned order Proc.No. F/6606'2015 dated:22-O9-2O15 (including drspossessic n of petitioners) passed by the 4tt' Resp<rn,Jent.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AVADESH^{NARAYAN Sr\NGHI}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents:^{THE ADVOCATEGENERI'L} AGP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the^{fo lowing:ORDER}

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.31781 of 2O15

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This r,r,rit petition is filed seeking a Writ ol Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in issuing proceeding No.F/66O6 12O15, dated 22.09.2015 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

This matter earlier came up belore this Court on 05.09.2023 and it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the validity of the proceeding dated 22.O9.2O15, rvhictr is impugned in this u,rit petition was zrlso challenged before this Court in W.P.No.31767 ol 2Ol5 and said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the impugrred proceeding dated 22.O9.2015.

¶32

This Court having taken note of the same, adjourned the matter to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader to get instructions.

¶33

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistar-rt Government Pleader lairlY conceded that the impugned^proceedings in this writ^petition was set

¶34

¶35

aside by rhis Court in W.P.No.31767 of 20 l S, v de order clated 05.C3.2O20.

¶36

tn the light of the above and lor tlre reason-. alike as assigned in the order dated 05.03.2O2L passed in W.P.No.31'767 of 2015, impugned procee(iing is :;et aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is also ailovveC. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if .rrLy pending, shall stand closed.

,TRUE COPY//

SDi.T. SRIN Dt:PUTY REGIS

¶42

Sl:C^-lON FICER

¶43

To, 1 . The Secretan,, Revenue Department, State of Tel:ngar a, Secretariat Buildings. Hyd, )rabad.

¶44

The Chief Con missioner for Land Administration, Niamparly Hyderabad.

¶45

The District Corlector, Medak District.

¶46

The Revenue [)ivisional, Officer, Siddipet lr/edak District.

¶47

The Thahasildirr, Gajwel [i,4edak District. 6. One CC to SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI, Advocat€ [OPt]Cl 7. Two CCs to^(iP for Revenue, High Court for tlre State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OLIT]

¶48

. Two CCs to th: Advocate General, High Court for the Srate of Telangana at Hyderabad [Ot T] I . Two CD Copies MP GJP "./

¶49

IlIGH COURT

¶50

DATE C,':1110912023

¶51

./_.. ' -" ,x
l<u
/l<br>.)
:)
I1ililzm'j
,1
ORDER

¶52

WP.No.lt171t1 of 2015

¶53

ALLOWING THI= WlRllT PETITION ln/lTl{rf tJT cosTS

¶54

,)
)
\

Indira Dochania, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs. v. the State of Tg.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indira Dochania, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs. v. the State of Tg.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Jain Vs Sri MD Nayeemuddin

Mohammed Majeehid Ali Vs Smt. Valluri Kranti IAS

Y. Naga Satish Vs V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad alias V.L.S. Prasad

R. Usha Sree Vs The State of Telangana

Kollu Satyanarayana Vs Union of India

Dakoji Yadagiri Vs State of Telangana