GOVINDAMMA, MBNR. DIST. v. JT. COLLECTOR, MBNR AND 3 ORS.
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SARATH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-29. GOVINDAMMA, MBNR. DIST. v. JT. COLLECTOR, MBNR AND 3 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 2292 OF 201 1 Between: Govindamma, Wo. Pedda Mogutappa @ Mogulaiah, aged about 52 years Agriculture R/o. Kothapally Village, Maddur Mafu a l, Maha-bubnagar Distri6t. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Joint Collector, at tvlahabubnagar, tvlahabubnagar District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District The Mandal Revenue Officer, lvladdur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District 4. Ramulu,. S/o. Mallappa Agricutture R/o Kothapally Village, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District ... RESPONDENTS I Petition under Adicle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the !
circumstances l stated in the affrdavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings clubbed filed No. H3/GB t1249tzoog dated 08. 10 2010 to detete the name of the petitioner in respect of land in Sy. No. a2-B srtuated with in the limits of Kothapally i village of Maddur Mandal of Mahabubnagar District as from revenue records by conecting the name of respondent No. 4 as i egal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14,21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 2853 OF 2011) Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings clubbed filed No. H3/GB/1249/2009 dated 08. 10.
2010 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P, NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I ! I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 2292 of 2O11 ORDER: This petition is coming for hearing since 2011. On O8. LL. 2O24, when the matter was called, there was no representation, therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption "for Dismissal". Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute this case. 2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution/default. No order as to costs. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in tv. i s Writ Petition shall also stand closed SD/. A. SRINIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// t SECTION OFFICER To, Babu' Advocate [OPUC] 1. One CC to Sri P. Narahari 2.
TwoCCstoGPforRevenue,HighCourtforthestateofTelangana,at Hyderabad[OUTI Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G. Madhusudhan 4. Two CD Copies TJ ? ro-- GJP /: HIGH COURT DATED:2911112024 E JTA,€ I t\ ORDER t ) z 2[25 o OE UhB WP. No. 2292 of 201'l ) -I) ,"-t t OES p^1C DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON PROSEC UTION/DEFAU LT WITHOUT COSTS ( + >s 3 ? , L 1 L
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.