✦ High Court of India · 01 Sep 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 01 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
01 Sep 2025
Length
1,105 words

2. G.SRIDHAR, S/o. G.S.N.Murthy Aged about 43 years, Oc,c.Business Ri/o. Plot tto.ot, H.tt6.s-'14,11111161, PnaSe-tt, lndira Nagar, HB Colony, Moulali, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS AND

1. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Represented by its Principal Secletary' Stamps and Registrations Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telan$ana State.

2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, Hyderabad District, Near Niloufer Flospital, Red Hills, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004'

3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, Azampura, Hyderabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders declaring the action of Respondents rnore particularly Respondent No.3 in not considering the representation dated 22.09.2020 and to remove the Petitioners residential house bearing No.16-1 1-,105/19 Plot No.19, in Survey No.3, admeasuring 425 Sq.yds or 355.35 Sq.mtrs situated at Moosarambagh, GHMC, Hyderabad from Prohibit Registry even though the O.S.No.280 of 2O14 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC)' City Civil Court, at Hyderabad is dismissed as withdrawn on 19.O8'2020 as the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and corrsequently Direct the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 to consi,leration the representation dated 22.05.2020 and remove the Petitioners residential house bearing No.16-1 1-405/19, Plot No.19, in Survey No.3, admeasuring 425 Sq.yds or 355.35 Sq.mtrs situated at Moosarambagh, GHMC, Hyderabad from prohibit register as O.S.No.280 ot 2014 on the file of XIV Additional Chierf Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad is dismissed as withdrawn on 113.08.2020 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file'd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 to consideration the representation ,iated 22.09.2020 and remove the Petitioners residential house bearing No.16-'1 1- 4OSl19, Plot No.19, in Survey No.3, admeasuring 425 Sq.yds or 355.35 Sq. nrtrs situated at Moosarambagh, GHMC, Hyderabad from prohibit register as O.S.No.280 of 2014 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad is dismissed as withdrawn on 19.08.2020 Counsel forthe Petitioners : SRI MD. RAHEEM, COUNSEL REPRESENTTNG FOR, SRI GOVARDHAN REDDYJOUNDLA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. HARITHA KIRAN, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THEHON'BLESHRIJUSTICEANILKUMARJUI{ANTI WRIT rN No.220,4 oF 2O2L ORDER: - oJ Thiswritpetitionisfiledwiththefollowingprayer: o... to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate'Wtit or Writs' Order or Orders declaring " n."pondents more particularly the action lot considering the Respondeni No'3 in representation i"l"a 22'O}'2O2O and to remove the '-'""ia""ti'f t- house- learlnS -I:;.t6-t Petitioner" 4OSl19, Plot No'19 in Survey No'3' admeasuring425 Sq.yds o, s'iS:i-s+*tt" siiuated at Moosarambagh' GHMC, ffvJ"t"U^a' from Prohibit Registry even though thJ;:;'il zdo ir zo14 on the fite or XIV Additional di;i J,rag" FTC), city civil ^court' Hyderabad is dismissed as wiihdrawn on 19'08'2020 is illegal' arbitrary' 'unjust' as the ;;; to the principles of unconstit"tio-J and "g"it"i Direct the natural justice and consequently . Responde"iJ *t" particularly Respondent No'3 to consideration the representation dated 22'O9'2O2O and remoo" tf" Petitioners residential house bearing - Fto' No' le in Survev No'3 No.16-1 1-4;;i1;' admeasurit'!- +iS' Sq'yas or 355'35 Sq'mtrs situated at Moosarambagh' GHMC' Hyderabad from prohibit register "Jo's]Nl '28o ot-2tit+ ott the file of XIV Additional" c;# Judge (FTC), city civil. court' at Hyderabad is dismi"""d t" wiihdra*n on 19'O8'2020 and Pass"'"

2. Heard Mr' MD'Raheem' learned counsel representing Mr.J.GovardhanReddy,learnedcounselforpetitionersand Ms.D.HarithaKiran,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleader for Revenue for resPondents' 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that made on 22-O?'2O2O bY Petitioners a rePresentation was JAK,J w_2204 2021 to dt:lete entries of residential house bearing 2 No.16- Ll-4O5/19, Plot No.19, in Sy.No.3 admeasuring 425 sq. ydsr., or 355.35 Sq. Mts., situated at Moosarambagh, GHMC, Hyderabad, from prohibit registrar. O.S.No.2B0 of 2oi4 was filed in the xIV Additional chief Judge (FTC), city civil court, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the suit, the Registrar has rejected the representation by order dated 19-08.2t120, the court of XIV Additional chief Judge (FTC), city ci'ril court, Hyderabad, has passed the foilowing judgmerrt: "As per the Orders in I.A.No.8S of 2O2O, tlne suit is advanced to this day i.e., lg.OB.2O2O. Memo filed by the plaintiffs not pressing the suit. The plaintiffs I to 4 and defendants 2 and 3 are produced by the counsel for plaintiffs and the counsel for the defendants 2 and 3 through video conference. The plaintiffs I to 4 and defendants 2 and 3 reported that they settled the matter out of the court and they have entered into memorandum of understanding dated 16.07.2020 and requested to dismiss the suit as not pressed. The plaintiffs filed copy .of memorandum of understanding dated 16.O7.2020. In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as not pressed without costs."

4. The Sub-Registrar, Azampura, in his rvritten instructions to the office of the Government pleader (Revenue, Registration & Stamps), stated as follows: 3 JAK,J wp 2204 2021 "5. It is respectfully submitted that, one of th€ petitioners Sri G.Sridhar has submitted a iepresentation Dt. 22'O9-2O2O through h!" Advocate Shri J.Govardhan Reddy while enclosing the orders of Hontle XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, passed in O.S.No.280 of 2Ol4 dated 19-08-2020' 6. Further it is respectfully submitted that, the 3rd Respondent (Sub-Registrar, Azampura) has deleted tlre suit schedule property i.e., H.No' 16- I l-405/ 19, Plot No.19, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad from the list of prohibited properties recorded in the oflice of the 3rd respondent on DI.22.O9.2O2O (coPY enclosed). "

5. In view of the deletion of Property from prohibited list, i.e., residential house bearing No. 16- 1 l-4OS / 19, PIot No' 19, in Sy.Nb.3 admeasuring 425 sq. yds., or 355'35 Sq' Mts', situated at Moosarambagh, GHMC, Hyderabad, writ petition is liable to closed.

6. For reasons aforesaid, Writ Petition is closed' No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER ,ITRUE COPY// To, 1- One CCto SRI GOVARDHAN REDDY JOUNDLA' AdrocatelOPUCl 2 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana'

3. Two CD CoPies *t@, HIGH COURT DATED:0110912025 ORDER WP.No.22(t4 ot 2021 rSl ii; SDq ?2JAil2M v 1Z * * CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments