Goondla Chinna Gangaram S/O Ashanna v. The Mandal Revenue Oficer,
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
HIGH COURT FOR 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, Nizamaiad Distiict.
S/o. Ashanna, R/o. Thorthi ...PETITIONER
1. The tvlandal Revenue oficer, frllo,flI3lrtandal, Nizamabad District
2. The Revenue Divisionat Officer, Nizamabad (post a Oiitiilti -' --
3. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad District 4 Sardi Madgi Sayanna S/o. Muthanna 5 Sardi Madgi Ashanna S/o. Nadpi Ashanna, Q ponnpal Madgi Jaram Gangardm, Sio. Madqi bhoomanna /. Madgi Nadpi Ashanna S/o. Pedda Gangarair ...RESPONDENTS
8. Rachalla 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. Thorathi Villase, Morthad Ma"ndat, Niiaminaa oGtifti * '10 fulorthadchinna sayanna. s/oposhanna aged about 61 years. R/o. Thorathi vtttage, Mandal, Nizambadad District.
1'l lMorthad_Bhudevi,wo late.sayanna,aged about 41 years, R/o.Thorathi village, MorthadMandal, Nizamabad District. "
(Qi.9pi-ssed for default as against R6. As per Court Order dated 24t06t2011) (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 the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or Direction one more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarlng the orders of the 1st respondent passed in proceedings No. 81406912004 dt 10-06-2005 and confirming the same by the 2nd respondent in case No. A2l2BB2l2005 dt 20-10-200s as also by the 1st respondent in case No.
E114426120A7 dt 21-0'l-2008 are illegal, arbitrary, voilati /e of the Article 14 of Constitution of lntria and Section 4(b) of the AP assigne j Lands (prohibition of Transfers) Act. 19117 and set aside the said orders Counsel for the P rtitioner: SRI. P. PANKAJ REDDY Counsel for the R )spondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENL|E Counsel for the R, )spondents 4,5 & Z to 11: M/s. K.RAMA SIJBEIA RAO The Court made tl e following: ORDER I I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.L722 of 2OO8 ORDER:
This petition is coming for hearing since 2008. On 1l .I I .2022, 02.72.2022 and 16. 12.2022, when the matter was called, there was no representation on beha-lf of the petitioner, and therefore the matter was directed to be listed today 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, shall stand closed.
SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( lll SECTION OFFICER To, I //TRUE COPY//
1. One CC to SRl. P.PANKAJ REDDY, Advocate topUCI
2. fwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court toi tfre St'ate of Telangana, at HyderabadIOUT]
3. One CC to M/s. K.RAMA SUBBA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl
4. Two CD cooies BIU KKS Bsn
HIGH COUF:T DATED:3011212022 1- :.\ .'& i \e Cc.,s
ORDER
& WP.No.1 722 of 2008 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON.PROSEI ]UTION/DEFAULT WITHOUT CC STS a__ ,"\*\'[te