Dismissed

Hanmakonda Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2023WP/3200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Form E and consequential notices for being arbitrary and violative of constitutional articles. The court closed the petition as infructuous because the respondent had already passed an ejection order against the petitioner. Liberty was granted to approach lower courts under Section 151 CPC to challenge that order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to challenge the ejection order under Section 151 CPC.

Hanmakonda Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

i I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD^,"

¶3

[3303 |

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY^. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE -- PRESENT

¶5

TIIE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO /.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3200 OF 2023

¶7

Betrveen:

¶8

l. Hanmakonda Ramesh, S/o Fakariah, Occ. Agriculture, R./o Gatekarcpally village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam district.

¶9

Hanmakonda Veera Swamy, S/o Fakariah, Occ. Agriculture, R-/o Catekarcpally Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam district.

¶10

Hanmakonda Ravi Kumar, S/o Fakariah, Occ. Agriculture, RJo Catekarepally villagc. Singareni Mandal, Khammam district.

¶11

Muthuneni Ramaiah, S/o late Venkaiah, Occ Agriculture, R/o Gatekarepally Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District.

¶12

...PETITIONT]RS ,,--

¶13

.\ I)

¶14

L The Statc of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Rcvenue Dept Sccrctariat, Hyderabad

¶15

The District Collector, Khammam district.

¶16

J. The Revenuc Divisional Officer cum Agency Divisional officer, Kharnmam , Kharnrnam District.

¶17

...RESP0NDENrS /

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thc circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High CourI tnay be pleasctl kr issue a rvrit, ordcr or direction more particularly one in the nature ol Writ of Mandarnus declaring the issuance of Form E notice issued by respondent no J undcr scction 7(2) of Telangana Schedule Area and Land Transfer Regulation Act 1959 vide Notice LTR Casc No 03/2021lSingareni in respect of lands located in Sy No 2O7,467 and^:176 of Carc Karepally Village of Singareni Mandal Khammam district and the consequential notice dt. l8-01-2023 as being illegal, arbitrary and without^jurisdiction and violativc of Articles 14. 2l and l00A of Constitution of India besides violative of the Land Transttr Regulation Act and rules made thereunder and in violation of principles of natural justicc and conscquently set-aside the same by directing the respondent No 3 to drop all the proccedings related to land transfer regulation case no . 03/2021I singareni;

¶19

IA l oF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ol tlrc petition. the High Court may be pleased To grant interim stay of all further procecdings including passing of any ejectiment orders pursuant to the notices in case no 0li 201 I i singareni issucd by the respondent no 3

¶21

Counsel for the Pctitioner : SRI. S CHALAPATHI RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Responrlents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made thc follorving:

I i I I I

I I I i

i i i

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶29

1VRIT PETITION No.32OO OF 2o23

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare informed the Court that the respondent No.3 has already passed ejection order against the petitioner on 2l .O1.2O23 in LTR Case No.03/ 2O2 i /Singareni and placed the copy of the said order. 2. In view of the same the cause in the writ petition does not survive and a request is made to close the writ petition.

¶32

Recording the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to avail the remedies as available under la'"r' to question the order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 in LTR Case No.O3l2O2l /Singareni. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this rvrit petition, sha,ll stand closed.

¶34

SD/-MOtID.SANAU^{LLA H ANSA RI} ASSISTANT GISl'I{AIT

¶35

//TRUE COPY// SECTIO oF['lc^{t._ t{}

¶36

'I'o,

¶37

l. One^{CC to SRI S CHALAPATHIRAO Advocate [Ot'?"]} or r",ungana,^Hyderabad. i i;;A;,""cp^{eon REVENUE' Hish court ror the star} lourl

i.^{Two CD Copies}

<br>

HICH COURT

JSR, J

DATED: 11610212023

ORDER

WP.No.3200 of 2023

1 BE Sra 14:
ii
t o
/<br>!, I
.Jo-) 2 1 FtB 2i23
<br>

¶47

WRIT PETITION IS DIS]\I ISSEI) AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶48

Hanmakonda Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanmakonda Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

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

V.Chandra Bhanu Rao, Vs B.Shafiullah

Fishermen Cooperative Society, Karimnagar Dist. Vs Bojja Narayana, Karimnagar Dist. and Another

M/s. Sai Anjali Engineering Enterprises, Vs Smt. B.Udaya Lakshmi, IAS

Goka Laxma Reddy Vs The Revisional Authority under Apsaltr cum the Secretary

Dhanisetti Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telangana

Shyamala Krishna Reddy, Khammam Dist., and 4 Otrs. Vs the Govt.of a.P.,Rep.by Prl.Secretary,Forest,Hyd.,and 5 Otrs.