Telangana High Court
WP/18339/2008 of Konduru Suresh Kumar Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal on 30 December 2022
Suresh Kumar Reddy, S/o. Sri Ramana Reddy Business Rl/o.Gl, Plot No.8, Gayathri Nagar, AllaIur, Borabanda, Hyderaba<i-18. 2. Mantena_ A1j.gryya Raju, S/o. Late M. Subba Raju Retd. Service Rl/o. H No.A32, Hilt Ridge Viitas, Nationat cames Viilage, CacniOoWi, frfaliaOiJ_ 32. 3. A . Ramachandra
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOUR.\BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO: 18339 OF 2008
Between:
1 . Konduru Suresh Kumar Reddy, S/o. Sri Ramana Reddy Business Rl/o.Gl,Plot No.8, Gayathri Nagar, AllaIur, Borabanda, Hyderaba<i-18.Plot No.8, Gayathri Nagar, AllaIur, Borabanda, Hyderaba<i-18.
2. Mantena_ A1j.gryya Raju, S/o. Late M. Subba Raju Retd. Service Rl/o.H No.A32, Hilt Ridge Viitas, Nationat cames Viilage, CacniOoWi, frfaliaOiJ_32.H No.A32, Hilt Ridge Viitas, Nationat cames Viilage, CacniOoWi, frfaliaOiJ_32.
3. A. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o.. Sri Naga Reddy Business R/o. DurganagarColony, Panjagutta. Hyderabad.Colony, Panjagutta. Hyderabad.
4. C. Sudhakar, S/o. Late C. Balakrishnaiah Bustness Ryo. D.No.6, GayathriNagar, Hyderabad-38.Nagar, Hyderabad-38.
5. K. Tirumala Prasad, S/o. K. Sambasiva Rao Business R/o. H. No.1-.1-.,lg0/23,RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONERS
AND
1Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its principal, Secretary, Revenue,Secretariat, Hyderabad.Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad.Secretariat, Hyderabad.Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad.
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy Dishict.
4The Tahsilar, Qutbullahpur Mandat, Ranga Reddy District.
The District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District.
...RESPONDENTS
circumstances Petition under stated Anicle 226 in the affidavit of the filed Constitution therewith, of the lndia High praying - Cdurt may that in thebepleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order ordireciion declaring the action of the respondents in not processing theapplications submitted by the petitioners in relation to the plots covered'underthe Sale Deeds vide Doc.No.7432l.1985, dt. 0S..1 1.1985 oi the first petitioner,Doc. Nos.5553/1 985, D1.05.11.1985 & t17Bl1gAS, dt.13.12.198S of the secondpetitioner, Doc. Nos.71761 1985, dr. 28.i0.1995 & 2431/i985. Dt. 05.11.1985 ofthe third petitioner, Doc.Nos.37.t 7/1 98S, Dt. 16.05. 1 985 and 3819/.1985, dt.22.05.1985 of the fourth [petitioner ]and Doc.Nos.3965/1985, dt. 25.05.1985 &2986/1985, dt. 22.05. 1985 of the fifth petitioner, under G.O.lr,4s.No.166, [dt.]16.02.2008 as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the Respondents toconsider the applications submitted by the petitioners in the light of the said GO.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 23871 OF 2008)
Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ][to]grant interim stay of dispossession of the petitioners from their respective plotscovered under the Sale Deeds vide Doc.No.743211985, dt 05.11.1985 of the firstpetitioner, Doc. Nos.5553/1985, Dt.05.11.1985 & 717811985, dt-13.12.1985 of thesecond petitioner, Doc.Nos.717611985, dt. 28.10.1985 & 7431l1985, [Dt.]05.1'1.1985 of the third petitioner, Doc-Nos.3717l1985, Dt. 16.05.1985 [and]3819/1985, d1.22.05.'1985 of the fourth [petitioner ]and Doc. Nos.3965/1985, [dt.]25.05.1985 & 2986/1985, dt. 22.05.1985 of the fifth [petitioner, pending ]disposalof the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C. RAGHU
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE [SRI ][JUSTICE ][K.SARATH]
WRIT PETITIO[N ][No.183][ o][9 ][of ][2OO8]
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:
Learned [Counsel]appearing [for the ]Petitionersin the [Writ ][Petition does ][not]submit that [the ][cause]survive [and ][thereby ][the Writ ][Petition ][has ][become]infructuous.
2. Recording [the ][above ][said ][submission' ][the ][Writ]Petition is [dismissed ][as ][infructuous' ][No ][order ][as ][to]costs.
3. As sequel [to it, ][Miscellaneous ][Petitions' ][if ][any]pending, shall [stand ][closed']
SD/.P.NAGABHUSHAMBAASSISTAryIEEGISTRAR//,RUE coPY// sE&il'il oFFtcER
To,
1. One CC to [SRI ][C. RAGHU, Advocate IOPUCI]i. i*J cc"I"-oi [FoR ][nrveruue' ][Higti ][court ][for ][the state of ][Telangana']tourl3.Two CD CopiesBNsw \1- I
HIGH COURT
DATED:3011212022
ORDER
WP.No.18339 of 2008
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONAS INFRUCTUOUSWITHOUT COSTS
1[HE ][STAT]o,\JoIU3 Ct[ [IAl{ ][?08]\\ [u,.]'r\-* ,':l"TC!._o{