Dismissed

Maramraju Appa Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Nov 2024WP/8554/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the petitioner to withdraw his writ petition challenging the revision of patta in the names of other individuals. The withdrawal was permitted, and the petition along with miscellaneous petitions were dismissed as withdrawn without costs.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition; the petition and miscellaneous petitions dismissed as withdrawn.

Maramraju Appa Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,THE^{FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEC.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:8^5540F2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rao, S/o. Yadaigiri Rao, aoed about 63 Years,^Occ. Maramraju^APPa Ia tvlandal. Mahabubabad Agriculture,^Rio' Abbaipalem village, Maripe District'

¶10

.PETITIONER

¶11

AND1 The State of Telangana, Rep' by its Principal Secretary' Revenue

¶12

' Oepartment. Secretariat, Hyderabad'

¶13

The^{Collector, MlahabubabadDistrict' Mahabubabad'}

¶14

The^{Tahsildar, Maripeda Mandal, tvlahabubabad'}

¶15

BodaDupya,^{S/o. Malsoor,aged about 45 ye-ars'Om Aoriculture'Rl/o' Boda} Thanda^{Ulo. nonarpaiJiirir[tir'r*'p"Oi'Vriniar,Ma6abubabad District.}

¶16

Boda^{Keeriya,S/o. Achaya, aged about 50 years'Occ Agric-ulture.'Fl/o 'Boda} " Tnu"Oi-Hl,i. Anbaipar-reilvittile, tvtaripeda [/andal, lrrlahabubabad^Diskict.

¶17

Boda^{Dola, S/o. Vasuram, aged about50 years'Occ Agriculture' Fl/o'.Boda} " inr;aZ rvb. noo"ipal"r,il6ge, tvlaripedi tvlandal'^{Mahabubabad District'}

¶18

7 Vantikommu^{Satyanarayana Reddy' S/o Pedd.a Laxma Reddy' Aged about}

¶19

' ) i'u:;:;!l'6;.:;'s;i;it,i;'^{Fvo.Ao'uaipatem, Maripeda Mandal' warangal} District.

¶20

RespondentNo.7isimpleadedasperC.o.dt.15.10.2024inlANo.212023.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition^{underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} "ir"r..t-rnl-".^{itrt"o in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may. be} ^roacart^{fo issue an order oi Oir""tion moreparticularly one in the natureof Writ of} th; u.tion^{or the 3rd respondentin issuins the impugned} [ffih;;;r;;; d;rcaia-e-znzz^{in proceedings No'.8/2034/2022in not restorins} ;i;;#;"i ,n"^".,r." "t^{the petitioneris pattadar of the land in Sy' No' 406' admeasuring} )iilzloi i*t;;^{siiuated at ntoaiparem viilase,Maripeda Mandal,Mahabubabad} 6,;uii^{t;Ue i,egat entrieiof 'the nameJrespondents 4 to 6, thoush it is the}

¶23

petitioner who is the original. pattadar of the above land and further though there are no proceedings effectrng transfer of the patta of the above land from the name of the petitioner to the names of the respondents, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to restore the patta of the above land in the name of the petitioner in the Dharani portal from the names of the respondents 4 to 6

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under section 1s-l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased ro issue interim order directing the 3rd respondent not to give effect to the implementation of the names of the respondents 4 to 6 as pattadar in the RoR of the land in sy. No. 406, admeasuring Ac.2-01 gunta situated Abbaipalem village, Maripeda Mandal, [,4ahabubabad District, pending disposal of main writ petition]

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M DAMODAR REDDy

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 7: ---

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR^REDDY

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.8554^{OF 2o23}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the^{petitionerseeks}

¶35

permission of this Court to withdraw the writ^petition.

¶36

Permission as sought for is accorded.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed^{as withdrawn.}

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any^{pending in this writ petition} shall stand dismissed.

¶40

¶41

To,

¶42

sD/- P SSBTA$+"*Et'8fl-iX r/

¶43

/ffRUE^COPY//

¶44

SECTION^OFFICER

¶45

One CC to^{SRl. M DAMODARREDDYAdvocateIOPUC]}

¶46

¶47

One CC^{to SRINARENDAR JALLI' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶48

2 3 Two CCs to^{GP FOR REVENUE'H|ghCourtfor the State of Telangana} touTl

¶49

4 Two CD^CoPies

KKS

GJP

I J

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511112024

ORDER

WP.No.8S54 of 2023

1 gii S'14 7 c
+ o
e
rj)
10 0Ei; 2[24
/
i<br>,ra .,
-L--rt'

¶59

DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

@q,'^ *r<^ fs\z\2"

Maramraju Appa Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maramraju Appa Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Yaseen Vs The State of Telangana

Muppidi Ambuja Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Maramraju Appa Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Gangishetty Bikshapathi Vs The State of Telangana

Maqbool Azlapuram Vs The State of Telangana