Dismissed

B.Venkatamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Dec 2024WP/2402/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking regularization of land in Survey No.175 under G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue Department dated 16.02.2008 was dismissed for non-prosecution/default, as counsel had expired, petitioners' addresses were insufficient for notice, and a Division Bench order in PIL No.517 of 2013 noted the Government's undertaking for non-implementation of the said G.O.

What the court decided

AI extract

B.Venkatamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

133021

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENry FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. SARATH}

¶6

wRt T PETITION NO: 2402^{OF m13}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . B.Venkatamma, Wo Late^{GopiReddy,Aged 70 Years,O-ccHousehold,} R/o Manikonda Village,^{Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶9

B.Parvathamma, Wo^{Anantha Reddy, Aged 56 Years, O-cc Household,} R/o Manikonda Village,^{Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶10

K.Balrai Goud. S/o Late^{Yettaiah,Aged 57 Years,Occ Agriculture,} R/o Puppalagucia Village,^{Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶11

K.Anianevulu Goud, S/o^{Late Yettaiah,Aged 52 Years, OccAgn'culture,} Ryo^'puppataguda Village,^{Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶12

B.Ram Reddy, S/o^{Late Gopi Reddy'Aged-55Years,.Occ.Agriculture,} - R/o Manikona'a Vittage, Rajendranagar Manrial, Ranga Reddy District'

¶13

K.Ramakrishna Reddy,^{S/o B.Ram Reddy,Aged 35 Y-ears, O-cc.Agriculture,} - R/o Manikonda Villag6, Rajendranagar Mdndal, Ranga Reddy District'

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue} Department, Secretariat^{Buildings,Hyderabad.}

¶17

2 The District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District, Office at Lakdikapool,} Hyderabad.

¶18

¶19

The Tahsildar, Rajendranagar^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to lssue an appropriate writ,^{orderor direction, more particularlyone in} the nature of writ of^{Mandamus,declaringthe actionof the Respondentsas} illegal, void, violative of^{principles of naturaljustice and contrary to Article 14 and} 300A of the constitution^{of lndia for not regularizing the land in surveyNo.175 to} an extent of Ac.o-24^{Gts, situatedat Manikonda Jagir village,Rajendranagar}

¶22

Mandal,^{Ranga Redd1, Districtin favour of the Petitionersand their children,in} terms of^{G.O-MsNo.166 Revenue (AssignmentsPOT) Department'dated} 16tO2t2OOB,^{and cc,nsequentlyto direct the Respondents to regularize the landin} SurveyNo.lT5toanextentofAc.0.24Gts,situatedatManikondaJagirVillage, Rajendranagar^Manda ,^{Ranga Reddy District in favour of the Petitionersand their} children, in terms^{of r3.o.Ms.No.166 Revenue (AssignmentsPOT)Department'} dated^{16102t2008sinr;e the Applications dated 08/05/2006and 29108/2008are} pending.

¶23

t.A. NO^{: 1 OF 2013(WPMP.NO:2917OF 2013}

¶24

Petition under Siection^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased direct} the Respondents^{not t,l dispossess the Petitioners from their possession of land in} survey^{No.175to an extent of Ac.o-24 Gts situatedat ManikondaJagir Village'} Rajendranagar^{Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, and consequently not to allot the} land for any^{other purposes, pendingdisposal of the Writ Petition-}

¶25

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRI K. GOVERDHAN REDOY}

¶26

Counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FOR ASSIGNMENT}

¶27

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶29

IPRIT PETITION No.24O2 OF 2Ol3

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is noticed that in view of expiry of learned counsel on record, on 14.10.2024, this Court has directed ttre Registry to issue notice to the petitioners. Subsequently, the Registry has issued notice to the petitioners and the same \Mere returned with an endorsement as "Insu{hcient Address". In view of the same, on 1 1 . 1L.2O24, this Court directed the learned Government Pieader for Assignment to instruct the respondent No.3 to issue notice to the petitioners with regard to the expiry of the counsel on record. In view of "Insufhcient Address" from the petitioners, the respondent No.3 was unable to inform the same to the petitioners.

¶32

This petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not regularizing the land in Survey No.175 to an extent of Ac.O.24 gts., situated at Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

¶33

¶34

SK.J \.t'.No.l-102 OF 2013

¶35

¶36

¶37

Reddy District in favour of the petitior-rers and their children, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 R.evenue (Assignment-s POT) Department, dated 16.O2.2OO8

¶38

After filing the writ petition, the Division Br:nch of this Court in PIL No.517 of 2013, dated 1O.O!).2OIS, passed o.:ders, in view of the undertaking given by the Governmr:nt of Teiangana for non-implementation. of the said G.O. Moreover, the addresses of the petitioners are not trace(l or-rt.

¶39

4 . In^.rie'v of the above circumstances, th e writ petition is; d:smissed for non-prosecution/default. If the petitioners have any grievance, they are at liberty- to file an appropriate petition to that effect. There shall be no order as trl c,lsts

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶41

closed.

¶42

SD/. N.RAJAGOPAL AS ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FFICER

¶43

To, 1 2^{. One CC to Sri K. GoverdhanReddy,Advocate [OpUC]} . Two CCs to GP for Assiqnment, Hilh Court for the Statle of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT] 3. Two CD Copies TJ PSK r

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611212024

ORDER

WP.No.24O2 of 2013

1 HE ST4 16:
e
o 0'r Ft3 2ilz5 oz
.<br>.).'&'.-). .l
'*, 'lD^1C H f

¶49

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR^NON PROSECUTION/DEFAULT WITHOUT^COSTS

¶50

/ /..s 871,,2t-r

B.Venkatamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B.Venkatamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soyam Thirupathi Vs The District Collector

Kalleda Jeevan Vs Sri Rahul Bojja, IAS

P.Anjaiah (Died) Vs Narayan Venkat Reddy

Smt. Muduganti Bhagyalaxmi Vs The Joint Collector

V.Narayana Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Gandla Pushpamanemma Vs The Government of Telangana