Mohd. Kazam Ali Khan 19 Ors, vs Rev. Dept., Rep. By Prl. Sec. 3 Ors,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5055 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5055 Tel
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2022

Telangana High Court

Mohd. Kazam Ali Khan 19 Ors, vs Rev. Dept., Rep. By Prl. Sec. 3 Ors, on 12 October, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                 WRIT APPEAL No.666 of 2007

JUDGMENT:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



      None has appeared for the appellants, though

Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned Government

Pleader   for      Revenue           has      appeared             for    respondents

No.1 to 3.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

16.03.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.18668 of 2006 filed by appellants No.1 to 16 as the

writ petitioners.

3. Order dated 16.03.2007 passed in W.P.No.18668 of

2006 reads as under:

"This Writ Petition is filed assailing G.O.Ms.No.161, Revenue (UC.II) Department, dated 13.02.2006, whereunder the Government allotted an extent of 17,17,027 square metres (Acs.424.13 guntas) of land in survey No.83 situated at Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, the fourth respondent herein. When the matter was heard at the stage of admission, it was brought to

the notice of this Court that the same G.O. was challenged in W.P.Nos.4121, 4141 and 4144 of 2006 and that the matters are pending before the Division Bench. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the Division Bench delivered judgment on 17.01.2007 dismissing all the writ petitions and upholding the validity of G.O.Ms.No.161. Following the same, I also dismissed W.P.No.2299 of 2006.

The matter is coming at interlocutory stage. An application is filed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation for vacating the interim order. Nonetheless, having regard to the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs."

4. Though we are in agreement with the views expressed

by the learned Single Judge, however, since there is no

representation on behalf of the appellants, the writ appeal

is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 12.10.2022 vs