Dismissed

Muddangula Krishnaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jun 2025WP/1418/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a mandamus directing the Tahsildar to conduct a spot enquiry and issue a possession certificate for agricultural land. With no representation for the petitioner on successive hearings, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution/default with no order as to costs.

Muddangula Krishnaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^3so2I

¶2

H1GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAYOF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FI\IE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1418 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mudda ngula Krishnaiah, s/o Narayana, aged 65^yrs, Occ^{Agri. r/o} Nagarrcol village, Nagarkurnool mandal and District.

¶9

...PETlTlOtIER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep by its^Pd. Secretary^{Revenuedepartment} Secietariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector Nagarkurnool District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Nagarkurnool Mandal,^{Nagarkurnool District.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd respond ent-Ta^h sildar on- the^petition of^{the writ petitioner} dated 16-09-2016 as illegal, arbitrary,^{void, unconstitutionaland againstthe} principles of natural justice, the 3rd respondent may be directed to conduct spot enquiry^pursuant to said^petition and issue^{possession certificateto the vwit} petitioner in respect of Ac.4.00 gts in Sy.No 652 situated at Naganool village, Nagarkurnool mandal and district.

¶16

l.A. NO: I OF 2017{WPMP. NO:^16'll OF 2017

¶17

Petition under Section¹⁵¹ CPC^praying lhat^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} direct the 3rd respondent^{may be directed} to^{conductspotenquiry forthwith} pursuant to petitbn of the writ^petitioner dated 16-6-20'16 and issue^possession

¶18

certificate to th3^{writ petitionerin respect of Ac.4.00gts in sy.No652 situatedat} Naganool village, Nagarkurnool^{mandal& district.}

¶19

Counsel for thr:^{Petitioner:SRI V.HANUMANTHRAOluor enesexrl}

¶20

Counsel for thc^{Respondents: GPFOR REVENUE}

¶21

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶22

THT HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARA'TH

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.1418 of 2Ol7

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This petition is coming for hearing since 2O17. On L8.O6.2O25 when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption "for Dismissal". Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute this case.

¶26

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution/default. No order as to costs

¶27

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this

¶28

Writ Petition shall also stand closed

¶29

SD/-N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶30

To,

¶31

cl 1. One CC to SRI^{V.HANUMANTHRAO, Advocate I}

¶32

2 TwoCCstoGPfuRREVENUE'HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUTI

¶33

3 Two CD Copies BSR GJP (n-

¶34

I i I I i ! I i I t iI i I I I I I I

¶35

t I I a i I i tiI I i I ! t i ! ! i '.I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2:010612025

ORDER

WP.No.1,{18 ot 2017

-4'\ .\1
''2. .
lr<br>18sFPm
.)l
l, * /
o
;/'

¶41

DISMISSIING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON-PROSECUTION/DEFAU LT, WITHOU'T COSTS

¶42

¶43

flt,-($-

Muddangula Krishnaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muddangula Krishnaiah 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

Smt. G.Aruna Sri , Paladugu Aruna Sri Vs State of Telangana

Josyula China Jagannadham Vs The State of Telangana

A.Baswaraj Vs The State of Telangana

Sukine Rajeshwar Rao Vs Sri.K.Surendra Mohan, Ias.

Muddasani Satyanarayana Reddy Vs Sri.K.Surendra Mohan, IAS

Sunitha Devi Yerram Vs The State of Telangana