Dismissed

Dr.Shoukat Hayat Khan, Hyderabad and 3 Others v. the Spl.Court of Land Grabbing, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC5 Nov 2024WP/6025/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 6025 of 2008 for default. The petitioners failed to appear on the listed dates, leading to the dismissal of their petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed for default. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications closed.

Dr.Shoukat Hayat Khan, Hyderabad and 3 Others Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

[³⁴¹³ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6025 OF 2008

¶9

Between:

¶10

Dr.Shoukat Hayat Khan, S/o.Sardar Khan Business

¶11

Dr.Ayesha Khan, W/o.Dr.Shoukat Hayath khan Business

¶12

Adnan Hayath Khan, S/o.Dr.Shoukat Hayath khan Student

¶13

F ayzaan Hayath khan, S/o.Dr.Shoukat Hayath khan being the minor,rpe.by his mother and Natural Guardian the 2nd petitioner Dr.Ayesha Khan,W/o. Dr.Shoukat Hayath khan, aged about 54 years,

¶14

All R/o.H.No.9-4-176162, Nizam colony, Toli Chowki

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

The Spl.Court Of Land Grabbing, Hyderabad, (Prohibition )Act, rep.by its Registrar,BRKR Buildings Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶18

K.Sarala Devi, W/o.K.Dasharatha Reddy Housewife Fl/o.H.no.4-3-123, Devi Deen Bagh, Kandaswamy lane, Hanuman Tekdi Hyderabad

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutlon of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and set aside the^judgment passed in LGC.No.'12 of 2005 dated 20.2.2008 on the file of the Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad/'lst respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule land by the petitioners.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 25504 OF 2011)

¶22

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 grant injunction restraining Respondents NO.1 to 4 herein and their agents, servants and any other person on their behalf from making any constructions or altering the nature of schedule property admeasuring 136.4 sq. yds which is more fully described in the schedule hereof pending disposal of the above WP No. 6025 of 2008 and pas such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Schedule of property All that plot admeasuring^'1 36.4 sq. yds in Sy. No. 1291751D4 correlated to T.S. No. 3/1 , Block No. 5, Ward No.11 with premises bearing ltilunicipal No. B-2-Bl2lB situated at Road No. 13, Ban.jara Hills, Hyderabad is surrounded by the following boundarles :- NORTH - 40's Road SOUTH - House of Kondaiah EAST - Remaning land of Pertitioner WEST - Land purchased by Respondents No.1 to 4.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 7832 OF 2008

¶24

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 suspend the operation of the^judgment in LGC.No.12 of 2005 dated 20.2.2008 on the file of the Special court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act Hyderabad/1 st resprrndent.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.VENKATARAMANA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No.2 : SRI N.VASUDEVA REDDY

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

ry / 1 I

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶31

WRITPETITI oN No.6025 OF 2008

¶32

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

¶33

When the matter was listed on22.1.0.2024, none appeared for the petitioners. Therefore, this Court directed to list the matter today i.e. 05.11.2024, under the caption^,for dismissal,. Today also, none appeared for the petitioners, despite listing the matter under the caption 'for dismissal'. In view of the same, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the Writ petition for default or non_ prosecution.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed for default. There

¶35

shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ petitiory

¶37

shall stand closed.

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR S ON OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

'l["-Rt;1[rb:+,9,?'#,31,'fi^{;5f#:::i?iiiiY?""J3?,19r9,{iiibition)Act'}

¶42

One CC^{to SRI V.VENKATARAMANA'Advocate' [OPUC]}

¶43

¶44

Two CCs^{to GP FORREVENUE,High Courtfor the State of Telangana'} louTl

¶45

One CC^{to SRI N.VASUDEVA REDDY'AdvocatelOPUCl}

¶46

Two CD^Copies

\e-

BSK

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511112024

ORDER

WP.No.6025 of 2008

1 e T r €
'(
v
Jt
(
o 0 ,i r t B 2[25 .bo
at
t
c

¶55

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR DEFAULT WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

I
eA ,5

Dr.Shoukat Hayat Khan, Hyderabad and 3 Others v. the Spl.Court of Land Grabbing, Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Shoukat Hayat Khan, Hyderabad and 3 Others v. the Spl.Court of Land Grabbing, Hyderabad and Another

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

D. Siva Reddy Vs Union of India

Smt. v.Suneetha Rani Vs M.R.Prakash and 3 Oths

M/s Rama Krishna Constructions Vs Union of India and 4Others

The State of Telangana, Vs Ch Venugopal

G.Ravi Kumar Vs the Special Court Under Ap. Land and 3 Oths

Banoth Laxman, Vs The State of Telangana