Writ appeal against an order relegating the parties to the Civil Court while suspending the Tribunal's order. By consent of all parties, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order and requested the Single Judge to decide afresh, on merits, the validity of the Tribunal's order dated 24.06.2021. Appeal disposed of 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.
[3430 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 66 OF 2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order Daled 0411112024, in W.P. No. 20287 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
Ranga Rukmini, Wo Ranga Raja Ram, Aged about 78years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Chengicherla Village, Medipally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
lA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to
*
tn suspend the order dt.24lO6l2o21 , passed by the 2nd Respondent ST. No. 27'l /RD O(K) I 57 I I 2021 ( RDO Keesa ra Case No.A2l1 :23 1 l2O 1 8)
Counsel for the Appeltant: SRI D. PRAKASH REEEDY SENIOR COUNSEL REP Ms. D. MADHAVI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5: SRI Y. SHASHIDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respcindent Nos. 7&8: SRI V.V. RAMA KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent No.6:--
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
WRIT APPEAL No.66 of 2O25
JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble SP,J)
\
\
Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Ms. D. Madhavi, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4; Sri Y. Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.S and Sri W. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8
\
2 With the consent, hnally heard.
.) During the course of hearing, iearned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that before the learned Single Judge, the order of Tribunal/respondent No.2, dated 24.06.2021 was subject matter of challenge. The learned Single Judge has not examined the validity of the said order. Instead, learned Single Judge relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court by suspending the order of Tribunal. It is agreed that the order of learned Single Judge may be set aside and the learned Single Judge may be requested to decide the validity of said order passed by the Tribunal.
l I
2
.n.::
{r
4 In vieu' of consensus arrived at, the imptLgned order dated 04.IL.2024 passed in W.P.No.202B7 of 2O2l by learned Single Judge is set aside. Learned Single Judge is requested to riecide the matter afresh on merits in accordance with iaw
5 Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
SD/. B. SATYAVATHI UTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
ECTION OFFICER
To,
Telangana at HYderabad.
BSR (t-
I
a
)
HIGH COURT
DATED:1010112025
JUDGMENT
WA.No.66 of 2025
oo 0r ftAf ?0m a
.}
t OgSPA.T tr
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
\.dd[tu
l*,t I
Ranga Rukmini
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department
The Special Tribunal, Rep. by Collector, District Magistrate and Addl. Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division
The Tahsildar, Medipally Mandal
P. Damodar Reddy
Sujoy Paul
G. Radha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
