Telangana High Court
WP/1722/2008 of Goondla Chinna Gangaram S/o Ashanna Vs The Mandal Revenue Oficer, on 30 December 2022
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD[ 3302 I (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY , THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K, SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 1722 0F 2008 Between: Goondla Chinna Ganqaram. Aoe: 55 vears Village, Morthad Mandil,
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD[ (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K, SARATHWRIT PETITION NO: 1722 0F 2008
Between:
Goondla Chinna Ganqaram. Aoe: 55 vearsS/o. Ashanna, R/o. ThorthiVillage, Morthad Mandil, Nizamaiad Distiict....PETITIONER
1. The tvlandal Revenue oficer, frllo,flI3lrtandal, Nizamabad District2. The Revenue Divisionat Officer, Nizamabad (post a Oiitiilti [-' ][--]2. The Revenue Divisionat Officer, Nizamabad (post a Oiitiilti [-' ][--]
3. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad District The Joint Collector, Nizamabad DistrictJoint Collector, Nizamabad District4 Sardi Madgi Sayanna S/o. MuthannaMuthanna Sardi Madgi Sayanna S/o. MuthannaMuthanna5 Sardi Madgi Ashanna S/o. Nadpi Ashanna, Q [ponnpal ][Madgi Jaram Gangardm, ][Sio. ]Madqi bhoomanna/. Madgi Nadpi Ashanna S/o. Pedda Gangarair/. Madgi Nadpi Ashanna S/o. Pedda Gangarair
...RESPONDENTS
8. Rachalla Gangadhar, S/o. Chinna Gangaram, aged about 31Rachalla Gangadhar, S/o. Chinna Gangaram, aged about 31^ [years, ][R/o.Thorathi village, Morthad ][Maidal, ][NizJmabad ][District.]9. Kondra Nadipi Ganoarri, S/o. poshanna,ag'eA ibort a6 y"rit, ii.lo. ThorathiVillase, Morthad Ma"ndat, Niiaminaa oGtifti [*]9. Kondra Nadipi Ganoarri, S/o. poshanna,ag'eA ibort a6 y"rit, ii.lo. ThorathiVillase, Morthad Ma"ndat, Niiaminaa oGtifti [*]'10 fulorthadchinna sayanna. s/oposhanna aged about 61 years. R/o. Thorathisayanna. s/oposhanna aged about 61 years. R/o. Thorathivtttage, Mandal, Nizambadad District.1'l lMorthad_Bhudevi,wo late.sayanna,aged about 41 years, R/o.Thorathi village,MorthadMandal, Nizamabad District. ["]MorthadMandal, Nizamabad District. ["]
(Qi.9pi-ssed for default as against R6. As per Court Order dated24t06t2011)
(No. 4 to 7 are R/o. Thorthi viilage, Morthad Mandar, Nizamabad District.)
(R8 to 11 implead as per Court Order dated OTtl1t}g in WpMp i1499/08)
...PETIONERS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS Btol 1
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue a writ or order or Direction one more in the nature of writ ofMandamus declarlng the orders of the 1st respondent passed in proceedings No.81406912004 dt 10-06-2005 and confirming the same by the 2nd respondent incase No. A2l2BB2l2005 dt 20-10-200s as also by the 1st respondent in case No.case No. A2l2BB2l2005 dt 20-10-200s as also by the 1st respondent in case No.
I
I
E114426120A7 dt 21-0'l-2008 are illegal, arbitrary, voilati /e of the Article 14 ofConstitution of lntria and Section 4(b) of the AP assigne j Lands (prohibition ofTransfers) Act. 19117 and set aside the said ordersCounsel for the P rtitioner: SRI. P. PANKAJ REDDYCounsel for the R )spondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENL|ECounsel for the R, )spondents 4,5 & Z to 11: M/s. K.RAMA SIJBEIA RAOThe Court made tl e following: ORDERCounsel for the R, )spondents 4,5 & Z to 11: M/s. K.RAMA SIJBEIA RAOThe Court made tl e following: ORDER
I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.L722 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:
This petition is coming for hearing since 2008. On1l .I I .2022, 02.72.2022 and 16. 12.2022, when the matterwas called, there was no representation on beha-lf of thepetitioner, and therefore the matter was directed to belisted today under the caption "for Dismissal". Even today,when the matter is called, there is no representation. Itseems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute thiscase
2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution/default. No order as to costs.
3. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shallstand closed.
SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMARASSISTANT REGISTRAR( lllSECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,
1. One CC to SRl. P.PANKAJ REDDY, Advocate topUCI
REDDY, Advocate topUCI2. fwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court toi tfre St'ate of Telangana, atHyderabadIOUT]HyderabadIOUT]3. One CC to M/s. K.RAMA SUBBA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl4. Two CD cooies4. Two CD cooiesBIUKKSBsnKKSBsn HIGH COUF:T
DATED:3011212022
ORDERWP.No.1 722 of 2008
1- :.\.'&i\esCc.,&
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FORNON.PROSEI ]UTION/DEFAULTWITHOUT CC STS
a__,"\*\'[te