Dismissed

Bodapatla Anasuya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023WP/576/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, on a writ petition challenging a tribal land judgment under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC, allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to appeal, effectively rendering the writ proceeding barred or dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail appeal as provided under Telangana State Agency Rules 2024.

Bodapatla Anasuya Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY,THE THIRD^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENryTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: s76 OF²⁰²⁰

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bodaoatla Anasuva. Wo.Sreenivas^{Aged 45 years, OccHousewife} Rio.iusugudem ViIa!e,^{Mutkalapalli Mandal Khammam District, Telangana'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I The State of Telangana,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare} Department Secretariat,^Hyderabad. Th6 Aqent to the Govemment,^Khammam.

¶12

3 Paisa"Naoeswar Rao. S/o.Late^{Butchi Ramulu Aged 58 years,Occ '} Xiranisfrri'p nlo.Kothalingala^{Village and Post Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam} Dist.

¶13

a^parsa Venkateswarlu,^{S/o.Late Butchi Ramulu Aged 51 years, Occ Postman} RToXotnalinqala Villaqe^{and Post Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam Dist}

¶14

s.^paisa Srinivis,'S/o.Lite^{Butchi Ramulu Aged 49 years,occ Agriculture} - nioXoinatingaia Village and Post Kamepalti Mandal, Khammam Dist' o^prita-Venra% Latstriri,^{Wo.LateParsd Koteswar Rao Aged 44 years, Occ'} - Agriculture R/o.Kothalingala Village and Post Kamepalli Mandal' Khammam Dist

¶15

--.RESPoNDENTS

¶16

PetitionUnderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndlapray.ngthatinthe circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ,^{order or Directron, more particularly one in} ihe nature of Writ of'Certiorari,^{by calling the recordsof Judgment passedby} Respondent No.2 in o'S'No.g^{ol 2017 dt.28,10.2019 andSet asidethe Same and} declarlng it as illegal,^{arbitrary, violation of Article 14,21ol constitution of lndia} and against Mandatory^{provisionof lndia Succession Act} lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under'Section^{1 51CPC praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition. the High court may be pleased. to} fr.,^{,n order directingtire Respondent Nos 3 to 6-not to alienate the following} iroperties^{i.e., Agricultiural land io the extent Ac.4 20 situated in Sy No.131of as} weti as house Searing^{No.3-125 situatedat Kothalingala Village,Kamepalli} Mandal, Khammam District,^{pending disposalof the Writ Petition} Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{N. MANGA SHREE}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents^{Nolto2: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE} Counsel forthe Respondents^{No.3,5&5:SRI- KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR} counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: None Appeared} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶19

THE H( N'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVA|J^RAO

¶20

Writ Petition No.576 of 2O2O

¶21

ORDER:-

¶22

Wlrcn t re nratLer is taken up for hearing, Sr ot. Manget Srce, It:arncri clnr rsel for the petitioner seeks perrnissic rr to^wi[hdratr' thc $'rit p( titror rvit^t'r a liberty to avail the remerly o[ iJ:pe:Ll as proviclcd undcr lhe p o,.,isions of Telangana State Agency Rules 1')24.

¶23

Act'ordin l-r., the u,rit petition is dismissed as^{rvitltdrrtrvn, granting} libeltv rrs so rght by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

\IisL ellirr '()us petitions, if any, pending in this u rit petition shzrll sl and⁽ 1()s(⁽

¶25

ST)/.N.SRIHARI ASSIS".NT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// S;ECTI,3N^OFFICER

¶26

To, 1 Twc C(]S tc ]P FoR SOCIAL^WELFARE 'High^{Court for,ht:Stirte of} , t?: t^{I'l :} i^l, ",f^{i,'f't JRBI*t.,391ee39.} Io^P^u:l 3 5;;;it^{io i rr xor'ronpnniHv xiRnrururrlRR ' Advocatr [cPUC]} 4 T,,vt C[)^{coPt s}

BT/

ll\

HIGH COUF.T

DATED:03ltt4l2023

ORDER

WP.No.57€ ot 2020

,<:'::'': ->
1..
l,:r.,
[ ,"i

¶34

DISMISSIT. G THE WRIT PETITION WITHOI'I COSTS

¶35

(D
\o

Bodapatla Anasuya v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodapatla Anasuya 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

Ansari Metal Industries, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M.Tirupathi Reddy, Vs a.Vidya Sagar, I.A.S.

Maloth Hatchya Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kakarla Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Kurakula Sai Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sk. Ishrath Khan, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary