Md.Kamal Pasha vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 823 Tel

   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