Kodela Ilaiah 3 Others vs The Dist Collector, Medak Dist, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1817 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                                    AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                                        W.A.No. 1076 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


          The appellants before this Court (writ petitioners) have filed

the present appeal being aggrieved by judgment dated 12.11.2007,

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22484 of 2007.


          The aforesaid writ petition was preferred being aggrieved by

Memo dated 09.10.2007 issued by respondent No.3- Tahsildar,

Kondapak Mandal, Medak District, informing the appellants that

W.P.No.10564 of 2007 filed by them in respect of Survey No.273

admeasuring Ac.8.11 guntas was dismissed on 25.07.2007.

The facts of the case reveal that the appellants were claiming

title over the land admeasuring Acs.8-11 guntas in Survey No.273

situated at Arepally Village, hamlet of Velikatta of Kondapak

Mandal, Medak District, and they have preferred a Writ Petition i.e.,

W.P.No.10564 of 2007 stating that the revenue officials are

interfering with their possession. The appellants also prayed for a ::2::

relief of regularization under Section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, based upon a

sale deed dated 07.01.1970. The said Writ Petition was dismissed

by a detailed order dated 25.07.2007.

The factum of dismissal of the said writ petition was

communicated by respondent No.3- Tahsildar to the appellants.

Instead of preferring a writ appeal, the letter issued by respondent

No.3 communicating the outcome of W.P.No.10564 of 2007 has

been challenged by filing second Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.22484

of 2007. The learned Single Judge has dismissed said Writ Petition

on 12.11.2007 holding that the appellants have not acquired any

legal right or title over the said land and a similar relief claimed by

them has already been denied vide order dated 25.07.2007 in

W.P.No.10564 of 2007.

In the considered opinion of this Court as the earlier order

passed in W.P.No.10564 of 2007 has not been challenged, the

controversy cannot be adjudicated again and again. No case is

made out for interference and the impugned order ::3::

dated 12.11.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.22484 of 2007 is upheld.

Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

dismissed.

______________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 11-04-2022 LUR