Telangana High Court
WP/11373/2002 of C.Rukmini Vs The District Collector on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11373 of 2002 Between: C.Rukmini, W/o. C.Ramachandra Rao R/o. A -13, Madhura Nagar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 11373 of 2002
Between: C.Rukmini, W/o. C.Ramachandra Rao R/o. A-13, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND1. The District Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad.2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, R.R.District.3. The Joint Sub Registrar, Moosapet, R.R. District.4. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Paigah Palace,Rasoolpura, Secunderabad.5. Serilingampally Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner,Serilingampally, R.R.District......RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the 1[st] respondent herein in issuing direction to therespondents 3 to 5 not to entertain the transactions for the purpose of registration, layout approval, plan approval etc., as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction andfurther declaring that the proceedings dated 29/01/2000 in Letter No. E1/7306/99 onthe file of the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary and award costs.Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VARDHINENI KRISHNAMOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR.B.Viswanadha Reddy, StandingCounsel for HUDA.Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR.V.Viswanadham, Standing Counsel forMunicipality, R.R.District.
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counselappearing for the respondents.
The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the firstrespondent – The District Collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad, dated 29-01-2000 indirecting the respondents 3 to 5 not to entertain any transaction either for registrationor approval of lay out, etc., in certain survey numbers specified thereunder situatedin Maktha Mahaboobpet, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District as arbitraryand illegal.
When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learnedCounsel for the petitioner that the W.P.Nos.18372, 18374 and 20517 of 2000 inwhich also the validity of the impugned proceedings dated 29-01-2000 wasassailed, were disposed of by this Court along with W.P.No.4849 of 2000 and batchby a common order dated 12-11-2003 with a direction to the Joint Collector, R.R.District to conclude the proceedings initiated for cancellation of supplementarysethwar in respect of the lands in various survey numbers of Maktha Mahaboobpetvillage within six months and the petitioners therein who were served with show-cause notices were granted liberty to file explanations or additional explanationsbefore the Joint Collector. It is represented by the learned Counsel that this writpetition may also be disposed of in terms of the directions in W.P.No.4849 of 2000and batch.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 have not disputedthe fact that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the decision in Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order in W.P.No.4849 of2000 and batch with a direction to the Joint Collector, R.R. District to conclude theproceedings initiated for cancellation of supplementary sethwar, if not alreadyconcluded, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the petitioner hereinto file her explanation/objections, if any, before the Joint Collector, R.R. Districtwithin a period of 30 days from today.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Conclusion
______________________
27[th] December, 2004.
Note: Communicate a copy of this order
to the Joint Collector, R.R. District.
(B/O)
cs
To
1. The District Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad.
1(a) The Joint Collector, R.R.District.
2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, R.R.District.
3. The Joint Sub Registrar, Moosapet, R.R. District.
4. The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Paigah Palace, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad.
5. The Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, Serilingampally, R.R.District.
6. Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T.)
7. Two C.D. copies.