Telangana High Court
WA/2086/2004 of Sri. Mohammad Mosin Khan, Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 2086 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO : 2086 of 2004
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated25/06/2004 in WPMP No. 11475 of 2004 and W.P. No : 17426 OF 2003 on the file ofthe High Court.)
Between:
1 Sri. Mohammad Mosin Khan, S/o. MOhammad Nasib Khan, R/o. H.NO. 1-18-505/A-1, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
2 M.A. Khadeer, S/o. Mohaboob,
R/o. H.NO. 1-8-503/B, Vihar Nagar, Patigadda, Secunderabad.
3 M.T. Rajaram, S/o. Nagayya,
R/o. H.NO. 1-8-506/42, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
4 K. Karunakiran, S/o. Krishna Swamy,
R/o. Plot NO. 104, Raghavendra Residence, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.
5 Syed Zainul Abedin, S/o. Syed Mohammad Sadie, R/o. H.NO. 23-1278, Kotla Aijah, Hyderabad. R/o. H.NO. 23-1278, Kotla Aijah, Hyderabad.
..... APPELLANT(S)
AND
1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District, Attapur, RangaReddy2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District, Attapur, RangaReddy District.
3 The Mandal Reveneu Officer, Balanaga, R.R. District.
4 M/s. The Hyderabad Film Distributors & Exhibitors Co-op. HOuse BuildingSociety Ltd., Rep by its Secretary Sri V.B. Choudary, S/o. V.R.S. Choudary, O/o.The Society at Happy Homes, S.D.Road, Secunderabad.
Counsel for the Appellants:MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUECounsel for the Respondent No.4: Mr. Ramakrishna AnnavajjulaThe Court at the admission stage made the following Oral Judgment: (per SriDevinder Gupta, CJ)
Appellants’ writ petition No. 17246 of 2003 was disposed of at the admission stageby the learned single judge on 25.8.2003 with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 totake appropriate action after following the due process of law and the guidelinesissued by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 21198 of 1997, dated3.2.1998.
An application was moved by the 4[th] respondent herein seeking to have the saidorders set aside. The said application was allowed and by the order now impugnedin this writ appeal dated 25.6.2004, the learned single judge proceeded to recall theorder dated 25.8.2003 and dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned single judge ought notto have adopted this course. He submits that the learned single judge instead ofrelegating the appellants to have their remedies in other appropriate proceedings inaccordance with law, ought to have directed the 4[th] respondent to avail that course.
We have duly considered the submissions made at the Bar.
What the appellants were seeking in the writ petition was to protect the propertyagainst the official respondents. But, now, the 4[th] respondent has come into thescene and it has been seriously challenging the rights of the appellants over theproperty in question. It was brought to the notice of the learned single judge thatthere has been lot of litigation and suppression of material facts. Learned singlejudge, in our considered view, rightly dismissed the writ petition after observing thatdisputed questions of law as to ownership and possession of the land in questionare involved, for which, the proper remedy for the appellants is not to file writ petition.But, these questions must have to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.
With such an order passed by the learned single judge, we do not find any ground tointerfere.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
______________________DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ
Date: 28[th] December, 2004
Pnb
_______________________M. NARAYANA REDDY,J
To
1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.
2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District, Attapur, Ranga Reddy District.
3 The Mandal Reveneu Officer, Balanaga, R.R. District.
4 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.
5 Two C.D. copies