The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the cause of action no longer survives because the land was acquired via a power of attorney agreement in a related writ petition leading to dispossession. The petition was dismissed without costs.
The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(SPecial OriginalJurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENW FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITIONNO: 17304oF20'10
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the circumstan"esstated in ttre attiOavitfiled therewith'the High Court may be pleased to issuean appropriatewrit,- orderor direction especiallyone in the nature of writof mandamui'declaringthe action of the 1st respondentin tv!-g]9 dispossess thepetitioners Uy mat<iniconstruction in our land of about Ac'20 18 gi.", S N..roog ot xrtrtpillyVilla"gehaving lost in WPNo'131 1 of 2005 and 6r1"n on 25.9.2009as illegal, arbitiary, malafidy' intentionaland withoutany ;;;1 .; authorityano is ",n' violationof principles of naturaliusticeand "ini"qu"ntrvdirlct the 1st respondentauthoritiesnot to dispossess the ;;iiti;;;;tt'theland of Ac.20.18 sts in S No'1.009of KukatpallvVillage' 'B;i;;r;"; Nlandal, R.R- District, p"ialng dispo'sal of the writpetition in the ini.rurit of iusticeand pass all necessary orders for the saidpurpose'
l !t II
: t I i 1 !
i I i I
/
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 21808 OF 2010)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent authorities not to undertake any cosntruction activity in the land 4c.2O.18 gts in S.No.1009 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K V BHANU PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent R1: O RANGANATHA KUMAR
Counsel forthe Respondent R2 TO R3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent R4: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
I II I !t Ii :
i
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.173O4of2OlO
ORDER:
When the matter istaken up for hearing,Sri K' Sai Sri Harsha, learnedcounsel appearing for thepetitioners submitted that thecausein the writ petition does not survive for adjudication andhence, the writ petition has becorne infructuous.
In view of the saidsubmission,the Writ Petition is dismissed asinfructuous-No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions,ifany, pending shall stand
closed.
SD/. T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT Gts
//TRUE COPY//
SE N OFFICER
To,
Ivllvtr
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2310912024
WP.No.17304 of 2010
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
h ,-\ '3co1.il,</sup>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication given the change in land status.
Whether the writ petition is infructuous and deserves dismissal.
Muneerunnisa Begum and others
A.P. Housing Board
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
