Mr.Yennam Krishna Reddy v. The Lok Adalat
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) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 34105 OF 2023 Between:
Mr. Yennam Krishna Reddy, S/o Mr.Janga Reddy, Aged 68 years, Occ Agricultural, Rl/o No.1-59 Veldanda Mandal, Nagar Kumool District. ...PETITIONER AND The Lok Adalat, District Legal Services Authority, At Mahaboobnagar. The Tahasildar and Jr.Sub Registrar, Veldanda Mandal, No.7-153, Veldanda Main Road Veldanda Nagarkurnool District Pin.509 360. Mr.Pamanigalla Vikas, S/o Late Mr.Anjaneya Gupta, Aggd 32 Occupation. Business Rio H.No.1-10-48/A Plot No.205 Ashoka Apartments, Ashok Nagar Hyderabad 500 020 years, Ratna
4. Mr.Goli Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Mr.Narayan Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occupation. Retd.Employee, Rio Cherukuri Village, Narayanpur Hamlet, Veldanda Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.
5. Mr.Gande Purushotham, S/o Late Mr.Purahari, Aged 47 years, Occupation Business. Rio H.No.9-'153, Devarkonda Village and Mandal Nalgonda District Telangana State
6. Mr.Pangunuri Chandrasekhar, S/o Mr.Sriramulu, Aged 4!'!91t9' Occupation Businesls, Rio H.No.16-83, Devarkonda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District Telangana State
7. Mr.sivanuri Sai Ramana, S/o Mr.Naresh Kumar, Aged 29 years, OccupationBusiness, R/o Plot No.'1 7 Sitapati Colony, West Maredpally' Secunderabad
8. lvlr.sambhu Prabhakar, S/o Mr.Narsimulu, Aged 68 years, Occupation. Business, Rio H.No. 12-68/20, Tilak Nagar Kalwakurthy Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District
9. M/s.Abisko Projects Private Limited, For Paduri Sashikanth S/o Mr.P.Ramsunder'Reddy Aged 41 years, Occ.business, Rl/o No.1 1-6-3! Flat No.402 Arunadevi Niliyari, Pocharam bagh Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.
10. Mr.Pullaourram Surender. Reddy, S/o Mr.p.Madhava Reddy Aged 5,1 years, 3E?;?iEB,"??r.R/oNo.
1 -.r 1 7, Y,*iv,",rir,'' i6o'iri,p,,.ut, Ransa Reddy 1'l ' Mr'Mohd.Darvesh. S/o Mr.Mohd.Sureman, Aged 43 years. occ. Business. Ri./o No. 1 -'t 43lp Rad hd krish na C" u"v, Ji, rri,i t",i"ni"Ga Kurnoot Dist 12.M/s-Btoormika Ajro Frn.lq ? Ltd, No.8-2-293 B21.131O/AJA, Road No.12 MLA Cotony Banjira Hils. Hyderauij io"o oo# "' r{ ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus decraring the Award dr.21t1ot2o1g passed in Lok Adarat case No'574 of 2019 in o.s.No.58 of 2016 on the fire of the Hon,bre Vilr Additionar District and sessions Judge's court at Mahabubnagar as nu, and void with reference to the Schedule ,8, of the Award as null and void. IA NO:
OF Petition under sebtion 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in srlpport of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant leave to present the writ petition.
lA NO: 2 oF 2023 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to consequenfly decrare that the sare deed dt2111112022 registered as document No '2425 0t 2022 in the office of rahasirdar and Jr.Sub Registrar, verdanda Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District as cance ed.
lA NO: 3 oF 2023 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to consequentry direct the respondent No.2 to remove the name of respondent No. l0 Mr.P.Surender Reddy as pattadar.
I I I lA NO:4 OF 2023 { Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 not to register further transactions over the writ petition prop€rty i.e., Ac.3-03 G in Sy.No.44i2 situated at peddapur Vilage, veldanda Mandal, Ngarkurnool District pending dismissal of main writ petition. III I :
:
I t II II I !
Counsel for the Petitionbr: SRI SRINTVAS SRIKANTH I I !
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P.SHASHI KIRAN, SC ,t it Counsel for the Respon'dent No.2: Gp FOR REVENUE I Counsel for the Responhent No.3 to 12: - The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIO N No.34105 oF 2023 ONDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.SAM KOSHL) Heard Mr.Srinivas Srikanth, leamed counsel lor the petitioner and Mr.P.Shashi Kiran, leamed Standing Counsel for rhe respondent No.l. Perused the material available on record.
2.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 21.10-2019 passed in o.S.No.Sg of 2016 by the leamed VIII Additionar District Sessions Judge, Mehboobnagar.
3.
The impugned award is an award which has been passed in a Lok Adalat held on 21.fi.2019. The petitioner who has now filed a writ petition after more than four years tiom the date rhe award has been passed and he craims and said to be purchascr ot- the suit schedure property way back in20l9.
4.
The reading of the contents of the writ petition and the documents enclosed herein, it is apparently clear that the petitioner rvas ,,vell aware of'the dispute pending before the court belorv aud rvas also made to believe that his interest was taken care of in the cour-sc ot the settlement that would be arrived at between the panies. .l.his in other rvays means (
that the petitioner was quite aware of the pendency of the litigation and the subsequent award which has been passed on 21.10.2019. For the past four years' time, the petitioner did not at any point of time raised any. grievance or claim nor challenged the award so passed and have filed the writ petition only now in December, 2023.
5.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition for the aforesaid reason assailing the award passed in October, 2019 now cannot be enteftained and the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected 6.
Another fact which needs to be borne in mind is that in between the defendant No.l in the O.S. hirnsell ar a larer srage had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the awald which too subsequently stood withdrawn on 14. 11.2023 i.c.. in W.P.No.31490 of 2023. This further forces this Court to inl-er that the present writ petition now has been filed after the original delendant No. I could not succeed in the attempt that was made at his bchesr challenging the impugned award and which made him convince the pctitioner herein to file the fresh writ petition. For this reason also the ir, rit petition is not worth entertaining and the same is accordingly re.iected
7.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. I SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT BEG]STRAR \'{, SECTION OFFICER {i II //TRUE COPY// To,
1. One CC to SRI SRIN|VASA SR|KANTH, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to SRt p.dHnsnl KRAN, sc topucl
3. I.*o CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT] :
4. Two CD Copies BSR GJP ;i A\-.lx l I ,1
HIGH COURT DATED: 1811212023 ii ',!{ I .t Ill I (. srA|6:
1$ l'l (j a
ORDER
o [2 J I Ct WP.No.34105 of 2023 -k * D t:
ir S i.
;
l 'l,i REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \t