Telangana High Court
WP/25903/2009 of Vennapoosa Penchala Reddy Vs Siddeswaraswamy Temple on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.25903 OF 2009 Between: Vennapoosa Penchala Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.25903 OF 2009
Between:
Vennapoosa Penchala Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy
..... PETITIONER
AND
Siddeswaraswamy Temple, Kalichedu Village,Saidapuram Mandal, Nellore District, represented by its Manager,Venkatagiri Group Temples, Venkatagiri Town and Mandal,P.S. Nellore District and another
....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.25903 OF 2009
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:
The matter is coming up for admission.
2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring theaction of respondent No.1 i.e., Siddeswaraswamy Temple, KalicheduVillage, Saidapuram Mandal, Nellore District in contemplating to conduct lease hold rights of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-40 cents in Sy.No.149 and an extent of Ac.3-59 cents in Sy.No.410 asbad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law and pass such other suitableorders.
3. W.V.MP.No.4296 of 2009 is filed to vacate the interim order.
4. This Court while ordering notice before admission on 27.11.2009
made the following order:
“The proposed auction may go on but the same is not to befinalized for a period of two weeks”.
5. The said interim order was further extended to a limited period.
6. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition.
7. It is stated that the petitioner made an application to respondentNo.2, dated 19.09.2009. Without expressing any opinion touching themerits and demerits, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writpetition be disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider theapplication of the petitioner, dated 19.09.2009 in accordance with law,within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.
December 29, 2009MD
___________________
P.S. NARAYANA, J