Telangana High Court
WP/903/2005 of The Urban Huts and Slum Dwellers Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.903 of 2005 Between: The Urban Huts and Slum Dwellers Development Association, rep.by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.903 of 2005
Between:
The Urban Huts and Slum Dwellers Development Association, rep.by its General Secretary Syed Ismail, S/o.S.A.Khadar,
AND
..... Petitioner
1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal R.R.District and twoothers.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
GP FOR ASSIGNMENT
The Court made the following :
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:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,more particularly one in the nature of writ ofMandamus, declaring the action of the respondentsin proposing to dispossess the members of thepetitioner’s Association by way of demolishing theexisting structures in the assigned land in Sy.No.58of Fathullaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, R.R.Districtas being discriminatory, arbitrary, bad in law,violative of the right to freedom of movement andviolative of right to life as guaranteed under Articles14,15,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India apartfrom being violative of the judgments rendered bythis Hon'ble Court and consequently direct therespondents to induct the remaining beneficiariesinto physical possession in terms of the Judgmentpassed in W.P.No.14377/2001 dt.3.9.2001 and topass such other order or orders.”
At the hearing, Sri S.Tulasi Das, learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that as the members of the petitioner Associationwere already evicted, the writ petition has become infructuous.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as such.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order, dated27.01.2005 is vacated, W.P.M.P.No.1191 of 2005 is dismissed andW.V.M.P.No.949 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous.
Date: 30.12.2008va
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J