Telangana High Court
WP/8240/2002 of Dasari Ramanamma Vs Government of A.P. on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8240 OF 2002 Dated 31st December, 2009 Between: Dasari Ramanamma …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh And five others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner :Sri I.Gopala Reddy Counsel for the respondents :---- The Court
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.8240 OF 2002
Dated 31st December, 2009
Between:Dasari Ramanamma …PetitionerAndGovernment of Andhra PradeshAnd five others …RespondentsCounsel for the petitioner :Sri I.Gopala ReddyCounsel for the respondents :----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:
“This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue awrit or order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theorder of respondents 2 and 3 inLr.No.M2/33764/2000 dated 20.02.2002 in sellingthe agricultural temple land in an extent ofAcs.70.56 cents in Sy.Nos.50/1A, 50/1C, 52/1,57/1, 57/3, 59/2, 61/1, 61/5, 5/1, 56/2 and 57/3 ofMadanagopalapuram Village, Hamlet of SriRangarajapuram Gram Panchayat which belongsto Sri Venugopalaswamy Temple, UlavapaduVillage and Mandal, Prakasam District for a priceof Rs.30,000/- per acre through private negotiationto the 5[th] respondent Society herein is illegal, arbitrary,malafide without jurisdiction and contrary toSection 80 of the Endowments Act andconsequently direct the respondents herein tofollow the procedure prescribed in Section 80 ofthe Endowments Act, 1987.”
At the hearing, Sri I.Gopala Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner, submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survivefor consideration.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Dated 31[st] December, 2009vrn