M. Jagadishwar, vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3046 Tel

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                        AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
                           Writ Appeal No.512 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

        Heard Mr. K.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. C.Kumar, learned counsel for respondent

No.5.

2. This intra court appeal has been filed against an order

dated 18.04.2023, passed by a learned Single Judge by which

the writ petition viz., W.P.No.10545 of 2023, preferred by the

appellant, has been dismissed.

3. The appellant claims to be owner and in possession of

house bearing No.1-7-533 to 556, situated in an area

admeasuring 216 square yards at Jamisthanpur, Hyderabad.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant along

with his family member has instituted a proceeding viz.,

L.G.O.P.No.39 of 1997, before the Special Tribunal -cum- III ::2::

Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, seeking a relief of

declaration. The aforesaid petition has been dismissed by the

Tribunal on 27.09.1997. The appellant along with his family

member has thereupon filed an appeal viz., L.G.A.No.13

of 2008 before the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Court, which

was also dismissed on 18.01.2010. The appellant along with

his family member thereupon has filed W.P.No.13192 of 2010.

5. A Bench of this Court by an interim order

dated 19.07.2021 has directed not to make any construction in

the subject property. However, in violation of the aforesaid

order, respondent No.5 proceeded with the construction.

Thereupon, the appellant filed another writ petition viz.,

W.P.No.10545 of 2023.

6. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid

writ petition on the ground that with regard to the same

subject matter, another writ petition viz., W.P.No.13192 of ::3::

2010 is already pending and the appellant is guilty of abusing

the process of law.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at

length.

8. Admittedly, with regard to the same subject matter, Writ

Petition No.13192 of 2010 was filed and the same is pending.

In case the grievance of the appellant is that the construction

has been made in violation of the interim order passed by the

Division Bench of this Court on 19.07.2021, the appellant,

instead of filing a fresh writ petition, ought to have taken

recourse to the remedy, which was available to him in law.

The subsequent writ petition was barred on the principles of

constructive res judicata and in any case, it was open for the

appellant to make an appropriate application in the said writ

petition, which is pending before the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly dismissed the

subsequent writ petition filed by the appellant.

::4::

9. Order dated 18.04.2023, passed by a learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.10545 of 2023 does not warrant any

interference in this appeal.

10. Writ Appeal fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

stand closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 10.10.2023 Note:

CC today.

B/o LUR