Telangana High Court
WP/26247/2006 of D.Ramachander Singh, Vs The Joint Collector, on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26247 OF 2006 DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 2006 Between D.Ramachander Singh … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26247 OF 2006
DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 2006
Between
D.Ramachander Singh
… Petitioner
AND
The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Khairatabad,Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOWRIT PETITION No.26247 OF 2006
The petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 24 of theA.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for brevity, InamsAbolition Act) feeling aggrieved by the proceedings of RevenueDivisional Officer (RDO), dated 28.06.1997 in case No.L/8015/92 inrespect of the land admeasuring Acs.12.25 guntas in survey Nos.131 and132 situated at Janwada village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict. The appeal in case No.F1/6907/1997 was also dismissed byorder dated 05.05.2005, by the first respondent. The petitioner filed anapplication under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) requesting the first respondent to set aside the order dismissingthe appeal for default. Alleging that same has not been taken up forenquiry and has not been disposed of, present writ petition is filed.
After getting instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue (General-T) submits that the first respondent has alreadypassed orders on 03.05.2006 dismissing the application filed by thepetitioner under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC and a copy of the order was alsocommunicated. Therefore, this Court holds that the writ petition is whollymisconceived. Liberty is given to the petitioner to obtain a copy of theorder, dated 03.05.2006, and seek redressal before appropriate forum.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
______________
27.12.2006.pln
(V.V.S.RAO,J)