Telangana High Court
WA/2180/2004 of M. Krishna reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 2180 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO : 2180 of 2004
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated25/03/2004 in WP NO : 962 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.)
Between:
1 M. Krishna reddy, S/o. Narsimhareddy, R/o. Babujinagar, H/o. Jawahar Nagar Village, Shameerpet Mandal, RangareddyDistrict.
2 K. Venkataiah, S/o. Bheemaiah, R/o. Babujinagar, H/o. Jawahar Nagar Village, Shameerpet Mandal, RangareddyDistrict.
3 Y. Suribabu, S/o. Kameswararao, R/o. Babujinagar, H/o. Jawahar Nagar Village, Shameerpet Mandal, RangareddyDistrict.
4 D.K. Jha, S/o. Jagadish Jha, R/o. Babujinagar, H/o. Jawahar Nagar Village, Shameerpet Mandal, RangareddyDistrict.
5 N. Jojaiah, S/o. N. Chinnaiah, R/o. Babujinagar, H/o. Jawahar Nagar Village, Shameerpet Mandal, RangareddyDistrict.
6 K. Adinarayana, S/o. K. Polaiah, R/o. Babujinagar, H/o. Jawahar Nagar Village, Shameerpet Mandal, RangareddyDistrict.
7 Smt. Juljadevi, W/o. Late Babulal Yadav, R/o. Babujinagar, H/o. Jawahar Nagar Village, Shameerpet Mandal, RangareddyDistrict.
..... APPELLANT(S)
AND
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, RevenueDepartment,Department, (Assignments) Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The District Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.
3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East, Mukharanjahi Market,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameepet Mandal, R.R. District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellants:MR.M.PRABHAKARA RAOCounsel for the Respondent Nos 1 to 4.: GP FOR REVENUEThe Court made the following Oral Judgment: (per Sri Devinder Gupta, CJ)
Appellants are aggrieved by the order passed on 25.3.2004 in Writ Petition No. 962of 2003, which was disposed of with batch of petitions, namely, Writ Petition No.3912 of 1992 and batch. Learned single judge while hearing the writ petition andbatch made different categories under which appellants/petitioners fell. One of thecategories was of Ex-Servicemen and the other is of Non-Ex-Servicemen.Appellants’ case was grouped in Non-Ex-Servicemen category, which led to issuingdirections as contained in Sub-para (iv) of the directions. Whereas, according to theappellants, they are Ex-servicemen and their case ought to have been disposed ofby issuing directions as contained in sub-paras (ii) and (iii) of the directions.Appellants state that in order to have the said mistake rectified, MiscellaneousApplication, W.P.M.P. No. 12305 of 2004 was filed by them and it was dismissed on2.7.2004 as not maintainable. Along with the said application, voluminous recordwas submitted by the appellants to show that they are Ex-servicemen.
There is slight difference in the directions issued in case of Ex-servicemenand Non-Ex-servicemen. Considering the material placed in the miscellaneouspetition, prima facie, we are of the view that appellants are Ex-servicemencandidates. Therefore, the directions as contained in directions (ii) and (iii) wouldgovern this case also.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal and modify the impugned order of the learnedsingle judge in so far as Writ Petition No. 962 of 2003 is concerned and direct that appellants-petitioners’ case will be governed by directions (ii) and (iii), but will not begoverned by direction No. (iv) of the directions contained in the Common Orderdated 25.3.2004, and it will be open for the appellants to produce whatever materialthey have got in order to establish their title as Ex-servicemen. No costs.
______________________DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ
Date: 29[th] December, 2004
_______________________
M. NARAYANA REDDY,J
Pnb
Note: Furnish c.c. in two days
B/o
Pnb
To
Conclusion
1 The Secretary, Revenue Department,(Assignments),Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The District Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.
3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East, Mukharanjahi Market, Hyderabad.
4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameepet Mandal, R.R. District.
5 Two C.Cs., to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)
6 Two C.D. copies