High Court for State of TelanganaWP/2014/2016dismissed

Ch. Sadhakar Reddy v. The Principal Secretary,

2016-01-25C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2014 of 2016 Date:25.01.2016 Between:

Ch. Sadhakar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy ..... Petitioner And:

State of Telangana., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture Department, Hyderabad and three others.

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. S.V.Indira Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP for Tourism (TS) Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: AGP for Revenue (TS) The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

".... to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling the Memorandum of Agreement without giving any notice and opportunity violating not only principles of natural justice but also violating Articles-14, 19 [1] [g] and 21 of the Constitution of India while keeping the GPA live executed by the petitioner in favour of

respondent No.1 for the total extent of land admeasuring Acs.11.38 guntas in Survey Nos.314, 314/A, 314/A/1 and Survey No.246 out of the total land admeasuring Acs.14.38 guntas situated in Sidapoor Village, Yadigirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently, to direct the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of land of the petitioner in Survey Nos. 314, 314/A, 314/A/1 and Sy.No.246 admeasuring Acs.17.38 guntas situated at Sidapoor Village, Yadigirgutta Mandal, Nalgonda District without following the due process of law, or alternatively restore back the land in Sy.Nos.314, 314/A, 314/A/1 and Sy.No.246 admeasuring Acs.17.38 guntas situated at Sidapoor Village, Yadigirgutta Mandal, Nalgonda District to the petitioner."

At the hearing, Mrs. S.Indira, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that her client's grievance is that the respondents have not been cancelling the memorandum of agreement of sale. However, the prayer sought by the petitioner in the Writ Petition conveys the opposite meaning. The learned counsel has fairly admitted this position.

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition with proper pleadings and prayer.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.2552 of 2016 shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 25th January, 2016 DR