Monday, 20, May, 2024
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mohammed Ghouse Khan vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 290 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 290 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 January, 2024

Telangana High Court

Mohammed Ghouse Khan vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 23 January, 2024

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                     AND
 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI


                 WRIT APPEAL No.193 of 2022


JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. K. Upender Reddy, learned counsel appears for the

appellant.

Ms. P. Bhavana Rao, learned Government Pleader for

Land Acquisition appears for the respondents.

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

dated 03.01.2022 by which Writ Petition No.4611 of 2021

filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this Writ Appeal briefly

stated are that the Sub-Collector, Bodhan, had assigned the

land to an extent of Acs.9.18 guntas in Survey No.74 of

Achampet Village to the grandmother of the appellant. After

demise of the grandmother and father of the appellant, the

property devolved on him and pattadar pass book was issued 2 CJ & JAK, J WA.No.193 of 2022

in favour of the appellant. As per the averments made in the

Writ Petition, the lands held by the ancestors of the appellant

were submerged in Koilsagar Project. Therefore, his ancestors

filed Writ Petition No.3467 of 1988 which was disposed of on

13.09.1988 with the direction to the respondents to allot the

alternative land to the ancestors of the appellant. However, no

action was taken by the respondents for allotment of an

alternative land. Thereupon, the appellant filed another Writ

Petition, namely, Writ Petition No.3658 of 2008 which was

dismissed by learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 19.02.2009. The aforesaid

order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld by the

Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh as

Writ Appeal No.923 of 2009 filed by the appellant was also

dismissed by judgment dated 21.10.2009.

4. According to the appellant, again, an area measuring

Acs.8.36 guntas out of the total extent of Acs.9.18 guntas was

submerged in Nizamsagar Project. Thereupon, the appellant 3 CJ & JAK, J WA.No.193 of 2022

approached the Land Acquisition Officer seeking allotment of

alternative land. The appellant submitted a representation on

14.05.2020 to the Land Acquisition Officer for allotment of

alternative land. Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer by a

communication dated 28.05.2020 informed the appellant that

Writ Petition No.46586 of 2018 filed by him is pending.

Therefore, on 16.11.2020, the appellant withdrew Writ

Petition No.46586 of 2018 preferred by him.

5. The appellant thereafter again filed Writ Petition

No.4611 of 2021 seeking allotment of alternative land. The

learned Single Judge inter alia held that the Writ Petition

preferred by the appellant is barred by res judicata as Writ

Petition No.3658 of 2008 filed seeking similar relief has

already been dismissed and the order passed by the learned

Single Judge has been upheld in Writ Appeal No.923 of 2009

and the same operates as res judicata. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

4 CJ & JAK, J WA.No.193 of 2022

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length.

7. The appellant had previously filed Writ Petition No.3658

of 2008 seeking the similar relief of allotment of alternative

land which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide

order dated 19.02.2009. The aforesaid order passed by the

learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal

No.923 of 2009 vide judgment dated 21.10.2009. Therefore,

the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the issue

involved in the subsequent Writ Petition was barred on the

principle of res judicata. The appellant therefore is not entitled

to allotment of alternative land in the facts and circumstances

of the case.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge.

5 CJ & JAK, J WA.No.193 of 2022

9. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 23rd JANUARY, 2024.

kvni

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 
 
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

 
 
 
 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

Campus Buzz