Karnati Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Karnati Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution/default with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed; the substantive mandamus claim was not adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the petitioner's representation dated 3-10-2017 for re-allotment at prevailing market value of acquired land (ac. 0.16 gts., Sy. No. 96, Pakabanda village, Khammam) was illegal, arbitrary and unjust, warranting a writ of mandamus directing consideration of the representation.

Ratio / Principle

The matter had earlier been called with no representation for the petitioner and was directed to be listed under the caption 'For Dismissal'; when called again, there was again no representation, leading the Court to find that the petitioner was not interested to prosecute the case.

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution/default, with no order as to costs.ratio¶42
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in the petition shall stand closed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (K. Sarath, J.), Writ Petition No. 40657 of 2017 (Karnati Nagabhushanam v. State of Telangana rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others): Article 226 petition seeking mandamus against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (District Collector, RDO and Tahsildar, Khammam) for failing to act on the petitioner's representation dated 3-10-2017 for re-allotment at prevailing market value of acquired land admeasuring ac. 0.16 gts. in Sy. No. 96, Pakabanda village, Khammam (acquired under Award No. 151/76). On 01.09.2025 the matter, previously listed under the caption 'For Dismissal' owing to the petitioner's non-representation, was again called with nobody appearing for the petitioner; the Court held the petitioner not interested in prosecuting the case, dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution/default, made no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous applications. No issue on the merits was decided; the interim application I.A. No. 1 of 2017 (WPMP No. 50466 of 2017) under Section 151 CPC lapsed with the main petition.

[^3302l

+l

,/

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

t

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry Fi'E_

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. SARATH

WRIT PETlTIONNO:40657 oF 2017

Between:

Karnati Nagabhushanam. S/o^Narasaiah, aged about g5 years, R/o pakabanda tsaza r, Khammam, Khammam oiriiiit. n"iiujl",ipfiill.

AND

.....PETITIONER

' U:|.:,t3:,"rit1,?3Hffi^{rep ' bv its Principalsecretary,Revenue Department}

The District Collector, Khammam District at Khammam.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District.

The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

?

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Articre 226 0t the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in not taking any action on the representation dt. 3-10-2017 submitted by me for re-allotment of the land admeasuring ac. 0.16 gts., in Sy. No. g6 situated at Pakabanda village, Khammam, Khammam District which *", ""qrir"O-;;;;;rr, to the Award No. 151/76, as per the prevailing market value, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequenfly consider for re-aflotment of the above said land to the petitioner herein on receipt of the prevailing market value.

2

v

t

t t ?-

: v

|.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMp.NO:50466 OF 20i71

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 direct the respondent authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dt. 3-10-2017, pending disposar of the main writ petition.

counsel for the Petitioner : sMT KAVITHA GorflpATr

it-

Counsel for the Respondents : Gp FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following ORDER

a'

I

7

u-

*-

!.

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH}

WRIT PEIITION No.4O657 of 2OL7

ORDER:

This petition^{is coming for hearing since} 2017. On I.L.O8.2O25,^{when the matter was called, there was no} representation^{on behalf of the petitioner,and therefore} the matter^{was directed to be listed today under the} caption "For^{Dismissal". Even today, when the matter is} called, there^{is no representationon behalf} of^the petitioner. It^{seemsthat the petitioner is not interested} to prosecute this case.

Accordingly, the Writ^Petition is^dismissedfor Non-prosecution/default.^{There shall be} no^order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any in this

petition, shall stand^closed.

SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMY
TANT REGISTRAR

/ / 4 a

//TRUE COPYII

,, i:

OFFICER

l{f

To 1. Two CCs to GP.FOR REVENUE, High Court for the of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

1. One CC to SMT KAVITHA GOTT|PAT|, Advocate [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies

SA BS

\ \

t

i i

a t

HIGH COURT

DATED i0110912025

I

I

.?

*+

ORDER

1 '1re -si4
t (;.
tl tB EE[, mm
*
i--5;r416'-'

WP.No.40657 of 2017

t.

DISMISSING THE W.P

lt,

FOR NON - PROSECUTION / DEFAULT

WITHOUT COSTS.

:
*.
to
J
b
I

.^:l:

f:-r*{tL