Telangana High Court
WP/33435/2010 of Smt. Illandula Venkatamma Vs Smt. Dr. P. Naga Neelima on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.33435 OF 2010 DATED 31ST DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Smt.Illandula Venkatamma … Petitioner And Smt.Dr.P.Naga Neelima and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.33435 OF 2010ST DATED 31DECEMBER, 2010
BETWEEN
Smt.Illandula Venkatamma … Petitioner
And
Smt.Dr.P.Naga Neelima and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMARWRIT PETITION NO.33435 OF 2010
ORDER: (Per SK,J)
Respondent 2 in L.G.O.P.No.1709 of 2006 on the file of theSpecial Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition)Act-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,filed a petition therein in I.A.No.2319 of 2010, along with some of theother respondents, to drop the proceedings in the L.G.O.P. on theground that no specific cause of action was shown and the provisionsof the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 were notattracted on facts. The Court below, by order dated 24.09.2010,dismissed the said I.A. Hence, this writ petition.
The case of the petitioner in the L.G.O.P. was that therespondents therein grabbed the schedule property and raisedtemporary illegal structures in the last week of October, 2005. Sheclaimed that upon her return to the city, she lodged a complaint withthe Musheerabad Police Station on 18.11.2005 in this regard.Disputing these aspects, the respondents in the L.G.O.P. contested thematter. The I.A. from which the present writ petition arises was anattempt on the part of some of the respondents in the L.G.O.P. to getthe proceedings dropped at the pre-trial stage itself.
The Court below, taking note of the fact that the defence put forthby the respondents in the L.G.O.P. on the basis of documents had tobe established during the course of the trial, was of the opinion that it would be premature at the pre-trial stage to conclude that the actsalleged against the respondents in the L.G.O.P. did not constitute ‘landgrabbing’.
Sri Samineni Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner herein,contended that the Court below ought to have examined the matter onmerits at this stage to verify the validity of his client’s claim instead ofputting it off till after the trial.
We however find no substance in this contention.
The respondents admittedly place reliance on variousdocuments in support of their defence against the claim of thepetitioner in the L.G.O.P. This defence would necessarily have to betried and tested during the process of trial. The petitioner cannot pre-empt the said process by seeking adjudication at this preliminarystage. We therefore find no error in the order under challenge.
The Wit Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissedat the stage of admission. Parties shall bear their own costs.
_______________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J.
31[ST] DECEMBER, 2010.VGSR
____________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J.