THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.207 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. K.J.V.N.Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Writ Petition No.46783 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition taking exception to the notice dated 27.12.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent for vacating Shop No.43, situated at Municipal Complex, Sathupalli Village and Mandal in Khammam District (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the subject property'). Appellant further sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent not to evict him from the subject property.
2 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.207 of 2023
4. From a perusal of the order dated 02.01.2023, we find that learned counsel appearing for the appellant had submitted before the Court that while trying to evict the appellant, 2nd respondent was actually seeking demolition of the shop. However, he sought for one month's time to vacate the shop. This was agreed by learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2. He further assured the Court that in the event 2nd respondent intended to demolish the shop, it would follow the due process of law.
5. After considering the rival submissions, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by granting one month's time from the date of the order to the appellant to vacate the subject premises; further directing the respondents to follow the due process of law before taking any steps to demolish the subject premises.
6. We find that learned counsel appearing for the appellant had also appeared in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. When he had given an assurance to 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.207 of 2023 the Court that he would vacate the subject premises for which he sought for one month's time, it is not permissible for the appellant to now turn around and question the order of the learned Single Judge. We cannot allow such a procedure.
7. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 17.02.2023 KL