Smt Sravathi v. The Legal Services Authority
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.
[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IUONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 34005 OF 2023 Between:
Smt Sravathi, Wo. Batchu Viswanath, Aged about 37 years, Occ: house wife, 8- 4113121, lvlacdowel Colony Hema Nagar, Chikanagar Buduppal RR Dist 500 AND ...PET|TIONER
1. The Legal services Authority, Ranga Reddy Dist, Rep by Secretary Ranga Reddy Dist Court at LB Nagar.
2. The Dist collector, Ranga Reddy Dist Koangarkalan Ranga Reddy
3. The Spl Grade Dy Collector and Revenue, Revenue Divisional Officer lbrahaimpatnam Division Ranga Reddy Dist
4. The Tahslidhar, Hayathnagar lVlandal Ranga Reddy Dist
5. Jalla Pentaiah, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about 70 Years, occ: Agriculture, R/o H. No 3- 2, Ramantapur village,Ranga reddy District.
6. Jalla lvlallesh, S/o Late l\Iallaiah Aged about 50 years, occ Milk vendor Both R/o H- No 3- 2, Ramantapur village, Ranga reddy District.
7. J. Krishna, S/o Bhikshapati Aged about 45 years,Occ not known to petitioner R:/o H. no 4- 8- 59, Puktanagar Hayath Nagar, R. R district.
8. J. Jangammaiah, S/o Bhikshapathi aged about 40 years, Occ not known to petitioner Rr/o 5- 6- 26 11 , Hayalh Nagar R. R district.
9. J. Soma lingam, S/o Bhikshapathi aged about 30 years,occ not known to petitioner R/o 4- 6- 27, Hayath Nagar, R. R district.
10. J Mallesh, son of Bhikshapathi aged 29 years, Occ not known to petitioner, Rl/o 4- 6- 27 , Hayath Nagar, R. R District.
1 1 . Sailu, S/o Ramaiah, Aged about 80 years Occ Agriculture Ri/o H. no 4- 6- 25, opp Police station, Hayath nagar,R. R District
12. J. lllaiah @ Ailoo, S/o Sailu, aged tMajor Occ Business, Rl/o H. no 4- 6- 25 Opp Police station Hayath Nagar, R. R. District. -13.J. Yadaiah, S/o Sailu Aged about 39 years Occ Agriculture Ryo H. no 4- 625,opp Police station, Hayath nagar, R. R District 14.J. Shankariah, S/o. Sailu, aged above 37 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H. no 46- 25 Opp Police station, Hayath Nagar,R. R. District. 1 5. J. Srisailam, S/o Sailu, aged above 35 years Occ Business, Fl/o H. no 4- 6- 25 Opp Police station, Hayath Nagar, R. R. District.
16. J, Venkataiah, S/o Sailu, aged above 33 years, Occ Business, Rl,/o H. no 4- 625 Opp Police station, Hayath Nagar, R. R. District.
17. J. Sathaiah, S/o Sailu,aged above 30 years, Occ Business, R/o H. no 4- 6- 25 Opp Police station, Hayath nagar, R.R. District.
18.J Krishna, S/o Sailu, aged above 2g years, Occ: Business, R/o H. no 4_6-25 . ^ Up_p pottce station, Hayath nagar, R. R. District.
19. J. Rangaiah, S/o Sailu-aged a6out 26 years, Occ Milk vendor, Rl/o H. no 4_ 6_ ^^ ?.s.Opp Polic_e station, Hayath Nagar, R. R. District. zo f .!y91Oe1n9!oy.slo^! L_qkshm-a Reddy, Ased abour 72 years, Occ ousrness, rto 11- 10- B0/-1. SBI Colony Kothapet Saroornagdr RR'Dist 21.G Venkat Re{dy, _S1g G Narsimha neOOy, ngeO aOout Oa"years, Occ: Business, r/o 35- 58 Hanuman nagar, HyderiOad 500 060 ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus Declaring the award Dt 28- 01- 2003, passed in oS 387 of 1997 on the file of Dist Legal service authority Ranga reddy Dist at Ranga Reddy Dist court, LB Nagar as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequentry, decrare the sare deed bearing No 4g54 ot 2oo4 dt 24- 03- 2004 and regd Sale deed No 4814 of 2oo4 24- 03- 2oo4 executed by J Krishna (R- 8 and others) in favour of respondent No 20 and 21, the rand conversion Pro No L/194/2013 Dt 18- 02_ 2013 as null and void.
lA NO: 1 OF 2O23 Petition under section I s 1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased Suspend the operation of the award Dt 28- 0i - 2003, passed in oS 387 of 1 997 on the file of Dist Legal service authority Ranga reddy Dist at Ranga Reddy Dist court, LB Nagar pending disposar of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.SHARATH Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRt SHASHI KIRAN PUSLURI, SC FOR TSLSA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 21: _ The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.34005 OF 2023 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.T.Sarath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Shashikiran, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record.
2.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award passed by the Lok Adalat that was convcned on the 28.01.2003 and the seftlement arrived at in O.S.No.387 of 1997. As it would be evident that the award was dated 28.01 .2003, and the instant writ petition has been filed on t t I , 06.12.2023 i.e., after more than 20 years of time. The petitioner in the present writ petition has purchased the properly only on 12.04.2023 which again is a sale deed which has been executed after more than 20 years of the award that has been passed by the LokAdalat. 3.
The perusal of the pleadings would clearly also indicate that the award dated 28.0I.2003 subsequently was acted upon and the sale deed were all registered, the revenue records were accordingly corrected and mutation also took place in the year 2004 itself. [f after so long a period inspite of all these developments, the petitioner purchases the said
property with wide open eyes, the same would not give rise to a ground for challenging the Lok Adarat award passed on 2g.0r.2003. 4'
The writ petition would also not sustainabre at the behest of the petitioner for the reason that the original purchaser or the owner of the property in the year 2003 of the suit property has not challenged the award till date.
5.
The Writ petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected. 6'
As a sequel' miscellaneous apprications pending if any in this writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //rRUE copy// or.,.rT,('ffir!tJ[],*.
r SEcTIo,IP6FFIcER \ To .;;,,ii,q.lri.5ge'ffi ,ffiii}$pff:'f f s:]8.,:r,,pr,",":1".,, . Two CD Copies PSK.
SB
HIGH COURT DATED:1811212023 1 e SI ATe C) .b u f I I FtB 2$2[ .t oo c +
ORDER
WP.No.34005 of 2023 REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.
WLq