Disposed

Bethamcharla Yelamanda (Died as per Lr P2) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jul 2025WP/29565/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an ejectment order and sought direction for disposal of a pending revision case before respondent No.1. The court, without going into merits, directed respondent No.1 to decide the revision case in accordance with law after hearing affected parties within three months; interim order to continue till disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to dispose Revision Case No.6903 of 2015 within three months with notice and hearing; interim order dated 11.09.2015 to continue till disposal.

Bethamcharla Yelamanda (Died as per Lr P2) Vs The State… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

'' "' "",:::j;iii[:'ffiI,,,"_TELAN GANA

¶3

*t?,i"t?'rfi

¶4

,.'irt1.-"f l?p,f LT#."

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Sil JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

Between:

¶8

WRI T PETIT loN NO i295650F 2015

¶9

2 ,[{.";1":l f",,.'dti1"4'#i'i+n*+n#rHffi

¶10

AND

¶11

5."[[?L?",: 6d:r3,idili""h,ft::,,o,rTr! of rhe deceased petitioner No 1

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

iffimr+fiffihffi*ruffiffifi#fi#

¶14

iHf#fl^{ffi l*'#:'!fl "ux;i5fl'ff"[:'ff} ffi *'i:Jl,ll"ilfl aITfi [fl s^jxT, 9. Stripurapu Rajamouli. S/ "I"'f,

¶15

.,^^{ylSgg rnq.r4aonar} xnam,Sa*Bilflsi^{clothMerchant' R'/o'Venkatapuram}

¶16

ll ffi"r"#'#fl:.#:H'3,r[fl?^{S/o Apparao'R/o Venkatapuram virrase and}

¶17

1 1. Kodaparthi Rambabu, S/o. Kishta.iah Electrical shop, RIo. Venkatapuram vruage and Mandal Khammam District -'--'"*' ",^,"v

¶18

, ^ rz.t acnu Jaganmohan Rg9,. S1o Chanraiah Kirana Merchant, R/o. venkarapuram viilage and M;dn;t kha;;;nidijtriJi" "

¶19

Respondents no t to 12are not necessary parties ," - " -::::,#;NDENrs

¶20

Petition under /rticle 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, .the High Cou( may be pleased lo issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of

¶21

-;j:r:.'#; writ^{of Mandarrrrs rlr;clarinsthe orderdated01.08201t,:l;:il} - oassed^{by th: 3r'l respondenti e' AdditionalAgent} th" 5th^{respondenti e'th :Tahsildar'} Khammam^{C isrrir:l bY ailJ"ting} venkatapuranr^{m:' r <lala' u""n"*'''tio""n ' KhammamDistr ct t() rer ister a case} l'o'uarv^and "n''l]l^{tnprincipl :s of natural} against^{the Feiitii)rr()r,'} "'ln'i 14'19'21and300-Arf^{C'rnsti utionoflndia} iusticeandalsoviclBtion"';;:';t and^{consequt:rtlys et aside the same}

¶22

PMP^{NO:383170F201s)} l.A. No: 10tⁱ¹⁰¹⁵

¶23

,nces^{stated in} Petiticn^{unC€rSection 151 CPC prayingthat in the ':ircumsti} be^pleasedto the^{affidavit filec ir supportof the ietition' the High ct:urt -nay} O. 45^{of 2O12} suspend^{th(' rporetion of the Orderdated 01 08 2015 irr CN1AN} mmam^District passed^{by tfe A(ditional Agentto Govt Bhadrachala"n:: Khz} of the^above inctuoingtledSpossessionoftheappellant,pendingdiSpoSa revision^{cas e}

¶24

t.A. NO:^{1 C)F 2(r^6wvMP. NO: 676OF2016}

¶25

Between^:

¶26

The S,tat:^{of Telangana,rep by its Prl Secretary' fleve rue Department} Secretarl^I ,^HYderabad

¶27

2 i;; |;;,,;i.6ni^{of Social Welfare,Hvderabad,Fiep ry it; Prl Secreatary} - Soci:l wi'r ?'e, Hyderabad , Telangana State : iiJ nio;, ,',rJ'^{arj"ntto Governme-nt, Bhadrachalan Kharrn am District} a. fne S;.,U^{C r,llecto"r,Bhadrachalam KhammamDiskir':l} S. in" itrn, idii^{Ventatapuiammandala,Venkatapuram l'(han mam District}

¶28

.....petlttourRsi^RESPONDENTS

¶29

AND

¶30

1 . Ejethi'^rr rharla Yelamanda ,^{S/o. Venkatakotaah, age' I 45 years Rl/o'}

¶31

/enkirlapuram^village and^{Madnal Khammam D stric:}

¶32

...RESPONDE NT/PETITIONER

¶33

2 )'ela Sai Prasad, Ward Member,^{Rl/o. Venkataouranvil ageand Madnal} l,.ir an n am District

¶34

J tr,4crhaqrrned tsmait, R/o. Venkatapuram village. an1 Mttdnal Khammam frisitri( I

¶35

[fl]#,;r*,.J,:?i€/o^{venkat Rao Ri/o. Venkata,ruramv.it ase and} lvtadnat ^ Siripure 6 u Rajamouli. S/o. Lz vrrruree ;r,rd Mddnat Khamm#gl3li:,",",n^Merchanr, R/r Venkatapuram

¶36

I I

¶37

: friffiffi"ffil&soTt l^ Apparao'R/o venkatapuram vi,ase and

¶38

, H3;;t"il*,tr"fr} flr;gry;flj,, Itii#, **; n].::::TT

¶39

Respondents no.2 tog are not necessary parties in this writ petition

¶40

.^petition under section 1sl .-p^ ^-^..:_ "'RESPoNDENT. 51 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppor'l or,n" petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders rj ade in w P No 29565 of 2015 dated 1i.09.2015 and dismiss the writ petition

¶41

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. ptTTA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶42

Counsel for the Responder 1'4&5: GP FoR REVENUE

¶43

counser for the Responr""t'""rt t Nos. 2&3: Gp FOR SOCTAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondeni Nos. 6to12:_

¶44

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶45

-..,4.'-.-+-

¶46

THE^{tIOI\I,BLE SRI JUSTICEPULLA I(ARTHII{} o.295^65OF20L5 1VF5 TP^ETITIONN

¶47

OR D ER:

¶48

I^'( '1tion^{is fried' under Article226 of the Con stitutron} This^{W r:}

¶49

of lndia,^{seelrirrq tlLe following relie[:}

¶50

y,i,,i)i;,,, ,^{t t',:!,',rriii,i{,i,r::1:i;i',"'it|i,i,,} :i:i.i,iri," '::i':,,:,, ';;i';";' '^: ''^{::1, t osid" -"firiSfli;N;":r''':j;' the sdltc.:'ii::'}

¶51

Durirrg, 1l'rtdency^{of this Writ Petition' the petjtion 3r passed} away^{and pe tir r"rer No'Z' wtto is the wife o[ the drrceaserl petitioner'} was^{brougfrt r rrecord as per interim order'rlar'ed 06 ( 3 2025 in} I.A.No.1^{ot .- (lll:}

¶52

Hea-ci^{: l1 P'srinivasa Reddy' learnedcolttt:;t 1 lorthe} ired Government^{Pleader for Rever-tuefo - respondent} petitionerr;;^{it' r -} and^{learned Government Pleadel fol So:ialWelfare} Nos. i,^{4 llrld:} Nos.2^{and 3Despitese rvice o[ tlolirc'there is no} for resPotrrle^: -,n behalf^{of respondent Nos b to 1 ' '} represent:a^{lc l}

¶53

Lee r-t'Le I^{counsellbr the petitionerssubl nits ilri t} petitioner No. 1,^u'hcr pr:rssed away on^{27.O1'2023, hadlrreft'rr':r} an appeal bearing^{(l'1A ',1o.45} of^{2012 before respondentNo.3,cLLz llengingthe} ejectment rr-'l, d21sd O 1.03.2008, passed by th l A11cr,c v Divisional

/ I I I

Officer, Bhadrachalam, in LTR Case No.2/VKp/2OOB, whereby Possession of the subject land was ordered in favour of the Government. The said appeai was dismissed uzrCe order, dated 0l .08.201S. Aggrieved by the same, the deceased petitioner filed Revision Case No.6903 of 20lS before respondent No. 1 on 01.09.2015. However no orders have been passed in the said Revision Case so far. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No. I to pass appropriate orders within a stipulated period of time.

¶60

Learned Government pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 submits that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 1I.O9.2O1S, the Revision Casc could not be taken up for hearing. However, t.a.n.d Government pleader submits that respondent No.l will pass appropriate orders, in accordalce with law.

¶61

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and without going into the merits of the case, this Writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders in the Revision Case No.69O3 of 2Ollfiled by the deceased petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, after putting the affected parties on notice and providing them an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible, prelerably within a period of

¶62

pli'J I ) !a65^2Ol5

¶63

¶64

three^{(3) montlts'tr rm the date of receipt of a copYof this ord:r' Till} the disposal^{c'l ''Lr'' albrementioned Revision Case'th: in terit n order} granted^{t'n 1l'( 'o15 shall continue'}

¶65

Misce]Iztrr.:r:^{. .] petitionspending,ifany, sha] [stan lclosed.}

¶66

There^{shall Lr,' r LL r , -der as to costs}

¶67

Assrs??N+Jl"',t?[FE ./

,rrRtlE^coPY//

'iStiCTli)N^OFFICER

lfi*il-tls+mruffd$g--fltii court^{ror the slate :r -'c ansana'at}

¶72

''nn

¶73

: fliffi"ifi+=ra+eHx'

*?.F

C(;TODAY

HIGH^GOUFI.'I

DATED:02rc712025

ORDER

I
,1 '
).
,// < ''
tl.-:
Z
ii '- ?$lt c"\ i
I./
f'

¶83

wP.No,291565^{0f 2015}

¶84

DISPOIiII\IG^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOU'T^GOSTS

¶85

,/::
a) .a -l
7/r /l

Bethamcharla Yelamanda (Died as per Lr P2) v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bethamcharla Yelamanda (Died as per Lr P2) 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

M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

S.Krupakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Vinayak Steels Ltd., Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of

Chennoju Bramha Chary Vs The Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Gajanan Tamra Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Vaddepally Dasu Vs The State of Telangana