M. Yellaiah Gupta, R.R. Dist. vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, R.R. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1218 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                 AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


             WRIT APPEAL No.1087 of 2009

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


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 10.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.25020 of 2002.

     The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/writ

petitioner came up before this Court being aggrieved by an

order dated 19.06.2001 issued by the Mandal Revenue

Officer and the order dated 01.01.2001 issued by the

District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, directing the

appellant/writ petitioner to pay the market fee. Action was

also initiated for recovery of market fee as arrears of land

revenue. The undisputed facts of the case further reveal

that initially on 29.03.1989 the Hyderabad Agricultural

Market Committee, Hyderabad, issued a demand notice

directing the appellant/writ petitioner to pay the market

fee to the tune of Rs.1,90,108.25 ps. for the period from

December 1982 to March 1988 and also a sum of
                               2




Rs.3,80,216.50 ps. towards penalty.      The appellant/writ

petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid demand came

up before this Court by filing W.P.No.5239 of 1989 and the

writ petition was dismissed by this Court. The matter has

travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP was

also dismissed. Meaning thereby, the recovery of market

fee has attained finality after dismissal of the matter by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.            The respondents, in that

backdrop, have issued the notice on 29.05.1997 directing

the appellant/writ petitioner to pay the amount. However,

there was no response on behalf of the appellant/writ

petitioner and therefore, finally a notice was issued on

19.06.2001 for recovery of the amount as arrears of land

revenue. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

petition as the demand has attained finality in the earlier

round of litigation and even the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has dismissed the SLP. The learned Single Judge has also

observed that the appellant's/writ petitioner's approach is

atrocious.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the second

writ petition was certainly not maintainable in respect of

the same cause of action. Therefore, this Court does not

find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

17.03.2022 vs