Dismissed

Kalasani Lingaiah, Khammam Dist. v. State of Ts.,Khammam, and 2 Otrs.

Telangana HC20 Dec 2024WP/35616/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking a direction that authorities not dispossess the petitioner from agricultural land without acquiring it under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, pending since 2015. With no representation on repeated calls, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution/default, with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed for non-prosecution, no order as to costs, miscellaneous applications closed.

Kalasani Lingaiah, Khammam Dist. Vs State of Ts.,Khammam… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35616 OF 2015

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Kalasani Lingaiah, S/o Ramaiah, aged 45 years, Occ Cultivation, Rl/o. Ballepalli Village, Khammam Urban [V1andal, Khammam District, Telangana Stale.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam,

¶12

Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District, -

¶13

Tahslldar, Khammam (Urban) Mandal, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly that of the 3rd Respondent in repeatedly insisting the petitioner to vacate from his Agricultural Landed Property of Ac 1.00 Guntas in Sy. No- 218 of Raghunadhapalem Revenue Village in Khammam Urban Mandal of Khammam District without following any known procedure established by law, as illegal, irregular, irrational and without any authority of Law and Violative of Articles 14, 21 and 3004 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere in any manner with'iG petitioners possession over the said land without acquiring the same by paying compensation by initiating proceedings of land acquisition under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Rules f ramed there under

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WPMP.^{NO: 45754} OF 2015)

¶17

Petition under section 151 cPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased} to direct the ResponJents,^{Particularlythe 3rd Respondent not to dispossess the} petitioner from his landed^property of Ac 1.00 Guntas^{in Sy' No. 218 ot} Raghunadhapalem flevenue^{Village in Khammam Urban Mandal of Khammam} District, without initiating^{proceedingsof LandAcquisitionas contemplated under} the^provisions of^{The Right} to^{Fair compensationand Transparencyin Land} Acquisition, Rehabilitation^{and ResettlementAct, 2013 and Rules framedthere} under,^pending disposal^{of mainwrit petition}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. NAMAVARAPU CHANTI BABU (NOT PRESENT)} Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR REVENUE}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SARATH

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.35 6L6 of^2OLS

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is coming^{for hearing since 2015' On} 29.11.2024 when the^{matter was called,there was no} representation on behalf^{of the petitioner, and therefore,the} matter was directed to^{be listed on 2O.I2.2O24under the} caption "for dismissal".^{Today i.e-, 2O-L2'2024, when the} matter is called, there^{is no representationon behalf of the} petitioner. It seems that the^{petitioneris not interestedto} prosecute this case.

¶24

Accordingly, the Writ^{Petition isdismissed for} Non-prosecution/ default.^{There shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶25

Pending miscellaneous^{applications,ifany inthis}

¶26

petiti on. shall stand^closed.

¶27

SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSIS ANT ROEGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶28

CTION OFFICER

¶29

To, l One CC to SRl. NAMAVARAPU^{CHANTI BABU, Advocate} [OPUC] 2. f wo CCs to GP^{FOR REVENUE} ,High^{Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies BIV GJP

Qk-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011212024

ORDER

t,..
1 HE gir. r4:
{ c,.
i
2 7 FEB 2t)25 I
)
caf 'l

¶35

WP.No.35616 of 2015

¶36

DISMISSING THE WRIT^{PETITION FOR} NON.PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS

¶37

n trAlt4 bcel^Lg

Kalasani Lingaiah, Khammam Dist. v. State of Ts.,Khammam, and 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalasani Lingaiah, Khammam Dist. v. State of Ts.,Khammam, and 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinoba Weaker Section Association, represented by its Vs The Andhra Pradesh Bhudan Yagna Board

Hiranmayi Education Systems Pvt.Ltd, Represented by its Vs State of Telangana

Nandigam Bikshamaiah, S/o. Late N. Venkaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep

Smt.Sriranjani Bai, , Garse Sreeranjani, Vs The Joint Collector

Dr. 0. Partha Sarathi Rao Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. C. Hemalatha, Vs The State of Telangana