Allowed

Iduri Ram Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jan 2025WP/11926/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought extension of the four-week period granted earlier to approach the civil court for declaration and recovery of possession. The Court held that since the earlier order was passed on consent, respondents' reliance on the Ajay Kumar Jain judgment did not apply, allowed the application, and extended time by three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Time to file suit for declaration and recovery of possession extended by three weeks from receipt of copy of this order.

Iduri Ram Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

|^32s21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, IHE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

t.A.NO.1 0F2025

¶8

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 11926 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

lduri Ram Prasad, S/o Late lduri Bala Shankar Rao, Aged 77 years, Occ; Agriculture, Ri/o Pentlam village, Annapureddypally Mandal Bhadradri- Kathagudem District.

¶12

.....PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Tribal Welfare Department TS Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

¶15

2 The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department DSS Bhavan, Masabtank, Hyderabad.

¶16

3 The District Collector and Magistratei Agent to Government, BhadradriKothagudem District, Kothaudem

¶17

4 The Tahsildar, Annapureddypally Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

¶18

5 Thati Nagulu (died) his L.Rs. Thati Srinivas, S/o Late Thati Nagulu Occ. Agriculture Fl/o Pentlam village, Annapureddypally tVlandal Bhadradri kothagudem district.

¶19

6 ThatiVeera Swamy, S/o Ramulu, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o H.No. 1-87, Gouda Bazar, Pentlam Village, Annapureddypally Mandal, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶20

7 ThatiSuraiah, S/o Lakshudu, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o H.No.1-140, Gouda Bazar, Pentlam Village, Annapureddypally Mandal, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶21

B Thatikanakamma, D/o ThatiRamulu, Aged aboul T2 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.1 -5411, Gouda Bazar, Pentlam Village, AnnapureddypallyMandal, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶22

I ThatiSarojini, W/o.Satyanarayana, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-88, Gouda Bazar, Pentlam Village, AnnapureddypallyMandal, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶23

.----

¶24

ThatiVenkateswarlu, S/o Ramulu, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o H.No-1 -96, Gouda Bazar, Pentlam Village, AnnapureddypalilyMandal, Bhadradrikothaqudem District.

¶25

'1 1. Thatilvlutamma, D/o ThatiRamulu, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.^'1-86, Gouda Bazar, Pentlam Village, Annapureddypally i\rlandal, Bhadradrikothagudem District.

¶26

(Respondent Nos. 6 to 1I are impleaded as per Court Order dated 22.07.2024 in l A.No.1/2024).

¶27

.....RESPONDENTS

¶28

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 extension of time for approaching the Competent Civil Court by way of filing Suit for declaration and recovery of possession, as per the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court. passed by her lordship Mrs. Justice Surepalli Nanda in WP No.1.1926 of 2023 dtd.23.01 .2025.

¶29

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner, G.P for Social Welfare, appearing for the Respondents Nos.l & 2, Learned Assistant G.P for Revenue appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4, Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.S and Sri T.Nageswara Rao, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.6 to^{'l 'l} ., The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 11.

¶31

The oetitioner aoproached this Court seekino oraver in I.A.No.O1 ol 2O25 as under:-

¶32

gr3r-,: extens r n .ri' time for approaching the 5;',tt:nt^{Civil Court} cf iling !;Lrit fc'r'declaration and of rer n5 bv this

¶33

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 11 placed reliance on the^judgment of the Apex Court in Aiav Kumar Jain Vs. fhe State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Miscellaneous

¶34

Aoo lication D iarv No(s) .3966 5/ 2024 dated O9.12.2O24 and in particular placed reliance on Dara Nos.15 & 16 of the said iudqment and contended that Detitioner is not entitled for qrant of relief as oraved for bv the oetitioner in the Dresent I.A.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the averments made at para Nos.6 & 7 in the affidavit filed in support of present I.A. contends that since the subject issue pertains to substantial rights of the petitioner and since the order oF this Court, dated 23.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.11926 of 2023 is an order passed upon consent as indicated and observed at para No.5 of the order of this Court, dated 23.07.2025 passedin W.P.No.11926 of 2023 and due to circumstances, which are beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not approach the competent Civil Court within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order as directed by this Court and therefore, the request of the petitioner for extension of time needs to be considered and if the same is not considered, the substantial rights of the petitioner are going to be affected.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 11 on the other hand contends that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any time, since the granting of time to the petitioner would result in a fresh cause of action.

¶37

This Court opines that the plea as put-forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is not tenable and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalF of the respondent Nos.5 to 11 does not apply to the facts of the present case in view of the observations of this Court at para No.5 of the judgment, dated 23.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.11926 of 2023, which clearly indicates that the said writ petition had been disposed of upon consent of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf oF the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶38

The petitioner could not approach the competent Civil Court within the stipulated time as directed by this Court vide order. dated 23.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.11926 of 2023 and seeks extension of time to enable protectaon of substantial rights of the petitioner.

¶39

This Cour'-l ooines since the order of this Court, dated 23.07.2025^passed in W.P.NoJ1926 ol2o23 is upqo coosent of both the oarties hence, the oresent I.A.No.O1 of 2O25 in W.P.No.11926 of 2O23 is ordered as oraved for and the time qranted to the oetitioner to aoproach the competent Civil Court stands extended till further oeriod of three^(O3) weeks from the date of receiot of coov of this order.

¶40

It is howev<:r observed that the learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 11 herein are at libertv to raise all the leqal olr:as as are available to the respondents includino limitation before the trial Court.

¶41

SD/. P, PONNA KRISHNA ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR

¶42

,TRUE COPY'

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To 1. The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department T\isecretariat Buildings State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶45

The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department DSS Bhavan, Masabtank, Hyderabad.

¶46

The District Collector and Magistrate/ Agent to Government, BhadradriKothagudem District, Kothagudem.

¶47

The Tahsildar, Annapureddypally Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. 5 Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶48

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

One CC to SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

¶50

B. One CC to SRI r NAGESWARA RAO, Advocate (OPUC)

¶51

One CC to SRI IV.M.M.SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate (OPUC)

¶52

Two CD Copies

SA PVL

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811012025

ORDER

l.A.No.1 of 2025 IN

WP.No.11926 of 2023

o a 1HE S14 re
)
t: t-)
or]
l,
0l l'8ll 6
l'+
spatc rrgO lt

¶60

ORDERING THE I.A

¶61

H
,

Iduri Ram Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iduri Ram Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Agarwal Foundaries Private Limited, Vs State Load Dispatch Centre

Ganta Satyavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Farooq Ali Khan Vs The State Of Telangana

Pothnak Rajkumar Vs The State of Telangana

Paddam Bhadramma, Vs The Singareni Colonies Limited, rep. by its Chairman

M/s. Chaitanya Cement Pipe Company, Vs The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal