K.Raghu Rama Krishna Raju v. The State Of Telangana
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 298 OF 2016 28-04-2016 Between:
K. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju ... Appellant And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 298 OF 2016 PC: (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Heard Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C.V. Bhasker Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.
This appeal is directed against the following order dated 06-04-2016 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.11166 of 2016:
"The petitioner's grievance is that petitioner's application is pending consideration before 2nd respondent and that 2nd respondent is not considering the observations and conclusions made by Division Bench of this Court in its order dt.25.02.2013 in CRP.No.6708 of 2003.
2. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents states that no order has been passed by 2nd respondent as of date, and that the Writ Petition is pre-mature.
3. I agree with the said contention of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition is pre-mature since 2nd respondent as of date has not passed any orders on the application filed by petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as premature. No order as to costs.
4. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition shall stand closed."
We have perused the appellant's application dated 27-02-2016 and paragraph 95 (c) of the order dated 25-02-2013
passed by this Court in C.R.P No. 6708 of 2003 and batch, to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant. By the application dated 27-02-2016, the appellant seeks direction to the contesting respondents, who are about thirty in number, in appeal before the Joint Collector to file necessary documentary evidence, as stated therein, in respect of the land in Survey Nos.51, 52 and 53 so as to adjudicate the issue on the basis thereof. Till today, the appellate authority has not passed any order adverse to the appellant and in view thereof, the learned Judge holds that the writ petition is premature. We are in agreement with the view taken by learned single Judge.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. _________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 28-04-2016 ks