Sri Mudiganti Narsing Goud Vs The Revenue… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Sri Mudiganti Narsing Goud Vs The Revenue… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were directed to stand dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12-8-2005 in Proc. No. 8171512005 of Respondent No. 2 (M.R.O., Medchal) resuming the petitioner's land bearing Survey Nos. 38/12, 38/13, 38/14 (total Ac. 7.15 guntas) and Survey No. 38/10 was illegal, improper and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, warranting a writ of mandamus to set it aside.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner took no steps in the matter after the death of his counsel on record and there was no representation on his behalf, either physically or in virtual mode, the Court had no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

As sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 15205 of 2009 (Sri Mudiganti Narsing Goud v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, R.R. District and The Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal) decided on 18-02-2025 by Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar: The petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the order in Proc. No. 8171512005 dated 12-8-2005 of Respondent No. 2, the M.R.O., Medchal — served on him on 14-02-2006 — resuming land bearing Survey Nos. 38/12, 38/13, 38/14 (Ac. 1-00 + Ac. 4-00 + Ac. 2.15 = total Ac. 7.15 guntas) and Survey No. 38/10, alleging the order illegal, improper, arbitrary and violative of natural justice; a stay was sought in I.A. No. 1 of 2009 (WPMP No. 19964 of 2009) under Section 151 CPC. On the day of hearing the Court was informed that the petitioner's counsel on record, Sri B. Lingaiah Yadav, was no more; with no steps taken by the petitioner and no representation, physically or virtually, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand dismissed.

t.

[^32s5 ]

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

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 15205 OF 2009

Between:

Sri Mudiganti Narsing Goud, S/o M.Yadaiah, aged 39^years, Occ: Agriculture, Ryo. H.No.1-90, Shameerpet(V) R.R District.

...,ET,T'ONER

AND

The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division R.R District at Malakunta Road Goshamahal Hyderabad

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal, R.R District

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and set aside the order in^proc No 8171512005 dt^'1 2-8-2005 of Respondent No 2 the M.R.O Medchal served on the^petitioner on^14-2-20OGlo resume the land bearing survey No 38112,38113,38/14, adrneasuring Ac 1-00 Ac.4.00⁺ Ac 2.15 total Ac 7.15 and other survey No 38/10 and declare that^the order itself is illegal improper and arbitrary and against the^principles of^natural justice.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 19964 OF 2009)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased stay the operation of the order in proc No B,171512005 dt 12-8-2005 of Respondent^No 2 the M.R.O Medchal served on the petitioner on 14-2-2O06 to resume the^land bearing survey No 38/12,38/13,38/14, admeasuring Ac^'1-00 Ac .4.00⁺ Ac^2.15 total Ac 7.15 quntas including structures crop etc situated at Akbarjahpet,^Medchal, R.R

District^{pending disposalof the wp and not to dispose the petitionerfrom the suit} schedulepropertyandpermittingthepetitionertocontinuehisagricultureinthe land to^{get the yield fromthe crop of paddy' maize'tomoto' redgram for their} livelihood^{at Akbarjahpet(RajaBollaram (V) examining the same on the above} stated facts^{in the interest of justice'}

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRIBOLLAMLINGAIAHYADAV} C"rn""f for^{the Respondents:GP FORREVENUE}

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

t-

HONOURABLE^{SRI WSTICEN.V.SHRAVANKUMAR}

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.152OSof 2OO9}

ORDER

Today, when the^{matter has been taken up for hearing' it} is informed that^{Sri.B.LingaiahYadav,learnedcounsel for the} petitioner on record^{is no more.}

In spite of the^{above, the petitionerhas not taken any} steps in this matter^{and there is no representationon behalf of} the petitioner, either^{physically or in virtual mode' Hence' there} is no other option to^{this Court except to dismissthe Writ} Petition for non-prosecution.

.) Accordingly, the Writ^{Petitionisdismissed for} non-prosecution.^{There shall be no orderas to costs}

As sequel to it,^{Miscellaneous Petitions,if any pending,}

shall stand dismissed.

SD/.V.KAVITHA

STANT^REGISTRAR

/ffRUE^coPY//

SECTION^OFFIGER

Stricttrict at Malakunta^Road

To 1. The Re^{venue DivisionalOfficer'East Division R.R} Stricttrict at Malakunta Gosham^{ahal HYderabad} 2 The Mandal^{RevenueOfficer,Medchal,R.R District} 3.o^{ne CCtO SRI BOLLAM LINGAIAH YADAV'AdvocateloPUCI} 4. Two^{CCsto GPFO} R REVENU E, High^{Court for the State of Telangana, at} Hyde rabad. [OUT] 5. TwoC D Copies PSK, GJP ft.

t

\

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810212025

ORDER

WP.No.15205 of²⁰⁰⁹

o \1 lHE S14 14:
7
) 6
a)
O >
17JUil M
o c
'+t
jl.r^...,., '.-,-' i

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT PETITION} FOR NON PROSECUTION^{WITHOUT COSTS}

R6.8t