Telangana High Court
WP/1337/2012 of Pingula Prasad, Vs The District Collector on 31 December 2013
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1337 of 2012 Date:31.12.2013 Between: Pingula Prasad S/o Polayya and nine others. ..... Petitioners And The District Collector, West Godavari District and four others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.1337 of 2012Date:31.12.2013
Between:
Pingula Prasad
S/o Polayya and nine others.
And
The District Collector,West Godavari District and four others.
..... Petitioners
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri NimmagaddaSatyanarayana Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5: Sri NaramNageswawra Rao 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 a writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring theinaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in disposing of thepetitioners’ representation, dated 14-11-2011, forcancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deedsissued in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in respect ofthe land assigned to the grand father of the petitionersto an extent of Ac.6.52 cents in Survey Nos.139/2 and140/1 situated in Venkatapuram Village, ChintalapudiMandal, West Godavari District, as wholly illegal,arbitrary and unjust and consequently, to directrespondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider and dispose of thepetitioners’ representation, dated 14.11.2011, in theinterest of justice.”
At the hearing, Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioners, requested forpermission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. Tothat effect, he addressed letter, dated 27.12.2013, to theRegistry.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed aswithdrawn.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.1668 of 2012 is dismissed as infructuous.
__________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
31[st] December, 2013DR