The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to set aside revenue proceedings as infructuous on the submission that no further orders were necessary and the cause of action had ceased to exist.
The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous without costs.
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.
[33021
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRlT PETITION NO: 26381 OF 2013
Between:
G.Ramesh, S/o.G.Suraiah, Aged about 45 years, R./o.Gundam Timmapur village, Kothaguda Mandal, Warangal District
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONOENTS
Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc. No.D/608/2O13 dated 5.8.2013 issued by the 3'd respondent and the consequential notice issued in Rc.No.A,/167/2013 dated 21.8.2013 issued by the 4h respondent as illegal, arbitrary, withoutjurisdiction violation of principles of naturaljustice and violative of the provisions of the AP Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and consequently set aside the same
I
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 32637 OF 20131
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 preaseJ to stay all proceedings in Rc.No.D/609 t2013 dared s.8.2013 issued by the 3d res;pondent and the consequentiar notice in Rc.At16il2o13 dared 21 .8.2013 issued by the 4th respondent pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIN|VAS DAMMALAPATI
counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FoR pANcHAyAT RAJ & RURAL DEv Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI V.V. PRABHAKARA RAO, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.S: c NARENDER REDDY((SC FOR TG Zlrps) The Court made the foltowing: ORDER
,.,,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.2638 1of2013
ORDER:
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no further orders zrre necessary in this matter and the cause in the Writ petition does not survive and thereby, the Writ petition has become infructuous.
)a As sequel to it, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
To,
SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA //rRUE copy//ASSlsrANr$zlsrRAR
SECTION OFFICER
I
1 2. One CC to Sri Srinivas Dammalapali, Advocate tOpUCI . rwo CCs to Gp for panchay;a#lj h;;l'oJrLrb"p' r i*t, Heh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hvdeiabaa iotrn'-'-v ivrv'." 43. one CC to Sri G Narend6rReddv(t5_C idr rC ZppS) tOpUCI . 9r" 99 ro sri V.v. praonaur Rdil,-stiiiiu'c| ' ", 5. Two CD Copies TJ GJP
/
i : I I I,|I
HIGH COURT
DATED:2210112024
ORDER
WP.No.26381 of ZOlt
_: :.r
') 2 3 Fi:l 2n2'1
t.)
*
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
AS INFRUCTUOUS
WITHOUT COSTS.
@ott* @-
I
G. Ramesh
Government of Andhra Pradesh
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
