Jady Bal Reddy v. The District Collector And 3 Others
I [ 3302 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) I WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 11142 OF 2011 Between:
{ady Bal Reddy, S/o. Bhoomaiah, aged 35 years, Occ Rekurthy, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. Business, Rl/o.
...PETITiONER AND The District Collector, Karimanagar District, Karimnagar. The Revenue Divisional Officer. Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. Kundrapu Rajitha. W/o.Venugopal, aged 40 years, Rl/o. H.No.3-4-121, Sainagar. Karrmnagar, Karimnagar District.
Sathu Ramulu, S/o.Venkataiah, aged 59 years, Occ: Retired Employee, H.No.3-4-12'1, Sainagar, karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the 4.
circumstances stated in the affidavit fi{ed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, especially one in thq nature of writ of prohibition, prohibiting the 2nd respondent from proceeding With the proposed adjudication pursuant to the notice No.D/6457i2010, dated 10.02.2O11. I l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 13663 OF 201 1) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice No. D/6457/2010 dt 1O-2-2O11 of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI E.V.V.S.RAVI KUMAR (NOT PRESENT) Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI VIKRAM RAGI The Court made the following: ORDER I
THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 11142 of 2OLL ORDER:
This writ petition is coming for hearing since 2011. On 20.11 .2024 when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, and therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 04.12.2024 under the caption 'for dismissal". Even today i.e., 04.12.2024, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute this case.
2.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution / default. Therc shall bc no order as to costs. 3.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any in this petition, shall stand closed.
SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIST T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRI E.V.V.S.RAVI KUMAR, Advocate [OPUCI
2. One CC to SRI VIKRAM RAGI' Advocate IOPUC]
3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI
4. Two CD Copies BSR GJP,u I \
HIGH COURT DATED: 0411212024 ,t ( 'i HE S1'4 J (n(
ORDER
i 1/ FrB ?ozl vt, \ * WP.No.11142 of 2011 oGsPAICH60 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON.PROSECUTION/DEFAULT, WITHOUT COSTS plrr b