Thoparapu Laxmi, v. The Tahsildar,

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 9686 OF 2016 Between:

Thoparapu Laxmi,, Wo Raghu, Aged 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rio H.No.42-265, Tulasinagar, Jagtial, Karimnagar ...pETtrroNER AND

1. The Tahsildar, Jagtial Mandal, Jagtial, Karimnagar District

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Jagtial, Karimnagar District

3. The District Collector,, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar

4. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

5. Gunda Venkatesham,, S/o. Raja Veeru, Age 52 years, Occ: Real estate business R/o H.No.6-3-146, Near Clock Tower, Jagtial, Karimnagar

6. Chit Keswarapu Gangadhar,, S/o Hanmandlu Aged 49 years, Occ: Real estate business, Rio H.No.2-6-11, Near Pochammawada, Rambazar, Jagtial, Karimnagar 7, Vojjela Geetha,, Wo late Vojjela Ashok Aged 48 years, Occ: Housewife

8. Vojjela Chandra Prakash,, S/o. late Vojjela Ashok Aged 30 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee

9. Vojjela Raja Prakash,, S/o late Vojjela Ashok Aged 26 years, Occ: Student (RRs 7-9 are R/o. H. No.4-2-71116, Near Church, Tulsinagar, Jagtial, Karimnagar District) ,..RE.'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in violating the orders of the 2nd Respondent passed in Appeal Case No.B/10/2013, dated 04.01.2013 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,21 and 300 A of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the 1st Respondent to implement the order of the 2nd Respondent passed in Appeal Case No.B/10/2013, dated 04.01.2013

O: 1 OF 2016 MP. NO: 12231 OF 2016 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 direct the 1st Respondent to implement the orders dated 04.01.2013 of the 2nd Respondent passed in Appeal Case No.B/10/2013 by mutating the Petitionefs name in the revenue records during pendency of the Writ Petition. Otherwise the Petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 9: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9686 of 2016 ORDER:

Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a letter, dated 05.O9.2022 in the Registry seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition.

2.

Permission is accorded.

3.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/-N.RAMESH l'

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / ,TRUE COPY/I ,, Y, SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1.

2.

3.

4.

IVBC One CC to Sri G Madhusudhan Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] One CC to Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies One Spare Copy SB r'

cJ

HIGH COURT DATED: 0610912022 -.4 ,/., o .s .t3 ,$"

rr o d.

9iH $ o

ORDER

WP.No.9686 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS An €>