Panyala Muthyam Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 11 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 375 Tel

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

                         WRIT APPEAL No.46 OF 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

05.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25280 of

2021.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ petition

was preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner stating that

respondent         No.3/Tahsildar           was     proceeding         ahead   with   the

registration of a document presented by respondent Nos.4 to 12

therein and was also proceeding ahead to issue mutation

proceedings in respect of land, to an extent of Ac.11.12 guntas in

Survey No.1366, Ac.5.05 guntas in Survey No.1361, Ac.0.36

guntas in Survey No.1362 and the land in Survey No.398, which

fell to his share, situated at Ensanpally Village, Siddipet Mandal

and District. It was also stated that the objection of the

appellant/writ petitioner has not been looked into. It was brought

to the notice of the learned Single Judge that in respect of the

property, which was the subject matter of the writ petition, Second

Appeal No.1423 of 2010 and Cross-Objections (SR).No.27810 of

2011 were filed before this Court and by a common judgment

dated 23.09.2016, the order of the trial Court dismissing the suit

for partition was confirmed. Meaning thereby, there is no

judgment and decree in existence in respect of any share, so far as

the present appellant/writ petitioner is concerned. The

undisputed facts of the case further reveal that a review petition

i.e., A.S.M.P.No.1774 of 2017 was preferred seeking review of the

common judgment dated 23.09.2016 and the same is pending.

The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with a

liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner file appropriate application

in the review petition which is pending before this Court.

In the considered opinion of the Court, the learned Single

Judge has rightly held that on account of the order passed in

Second Appeal No.1423 of 2010 and Cross-Objections

(SR).No.27810 of 2011, the suit for partition filed before the trial

Court was dismissed and the present appellant/writ petitioner has

no share in suit properties as on date. Hence, the question of

interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge

does not arise. However, the liberty granted by the learned Single

Judge to file appropriate application in the review petition is

upheld. The appellant/writ petitioner shall also be free to avail

other remedies available under law.

Resultantly, admission is declined and the writ appeal

stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

01.02.2022 JSU