High Court for State of TelanganaWP/26630/2015disposed of no costs

Veesam Sugunamma, v. The State Of Telangana Rep By Its Principal Secretary,

2015-08-31Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 26630 of 2015 BETWEEN V.Sugunamma ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 31.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:-

Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no orders were passed by the second respondent even in the stay petition filed in the revision petition bearing R.P.No.E5/181/15.

3. Learned government pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that there is another revision petition viz., R.P.No.E5/186/15 filed by one Pendyala Saraiah, which is also pending before the second respondent, in which interim direction was already granted to maintain status quo by order dated 25.08.2015. Copy of the aforesaid order of the second respondent shows that petitioner herein is also a party-second respondent in the said revision.

4. Evidently, therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner bearing No.E5/181/15 as well as the aforesaid revision filed by another person bearing No.E5/186/15 are pending before the second respondent. Since already an interim order is passed in the connected revision case, in my view, it would be just and appropriate to direct the second respondent to hear both the said revision petitions together by fixing a date of hearing, consider both the said revisions, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 31, 2015 LMV