Writ petition challenging alleged attempted dispossession of the petitioner from two plots in Nizamabad without notice. Counsel submitted the cause did not survive; the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, with pending miscellaneous petitions also dismissed and no order as to 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.
I
I
I I I
[3302 ]
IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO: 34157 OF 2015
Between:
A-Raja Bapu S/o. Late A. Eswaraiah, Aged: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H- No.6-8214, Nam Devwada, Nizambad.
..PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in attempting to dispossess the Petitioner, who is the sole and absolute owner of the Plot Nos. 28 and 29, in Sy. Nos. 1684 and 1685 respectively to an extent of 400 sq.yards situated at Shivaji Nagar, Nizamabad, having purchased the same by virtue Registered Sale Deed vide Regd. Document No. 1 150/'1981 dated23103/1 98l without serving any notice and without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal withoutjurisdiction and not mandated by any provision of law and in violation of Article 14 and 300A of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, in the interest ofjustice.
ii /
//
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 WPMP. NO: 43961 OF 2015)
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 stay of dispossession of the Petitioner from the PIot Nos. 28 and 29, in Sy. Nos. 1684 and 1685 respectively to an extent of 400 sq.yards,situated at Shivaji Nagar, Nizamabad by the Respondents, pending the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
d
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEILSARATII
WRIT PETITION No.34157 of 2O15
ORDER:
Learned Counsel for thepetitionersubmits that the cause in the writ petition does notsurviveand the writ
petition has become infructuous.
Recording the said submission, theWrit Petitionis
dismissed as infructuous.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if anypending in this writ
petition, shall stand dismissed. No order as tocosts.
SD/. T.SREENIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
(2
SECTION OFFICER
To
tVP G, GJP
lt
HIGH COURT
DATED:0611012025
!
., l S 14I€
o,:)
/ 3 l'l 2iiit 2
t)e^
<--=n411,.rf!,.'
ORDER
WP.No.34157 of 2015
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A-Raja Bapu
The District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad
The Tahsildar, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
