Temple, Serilingampally, R. R District v. The District Coliectcr, Ranga Reddy District
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K SARATH
Outcome
Dismissed
Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
V. tt/adhavi Latha, W/o: V. Srinivasa Chary, aged about 39 years ,. Occ: Housewife, R/o House No 20- 115912, Papireddy Colony, near Hanuman Temple, Serilingampally, R. R District. ...PETITIONER AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad 3. The Sub- Registrar, Serilingmapally, Rajendernagar Hyderabad 4. The District Coliectcr, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stat:C in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tc issue an aopiopriate writ or direction, more particutarly a Writ in the nat,.re of l\rlandamus declare the inaction of the respondent No. 3 in receiving, processing and releasing the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the schedule property i e House bearing tt/unicipal No 20- 1/SC/124 (PTIN Nc 1119962779) admeasuring 140 sq Yds having plinth area of 200 sq Ft of ACC situated at Surabhi Colony, Serilingampally village, Serilingamaply [/andal. Ranga ReCdy district is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No 3 to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the schedule property i. e House bearing lVlunicipal No 20- 1/SC/124 (PTIN No 1119962779) admeasuring 140 sq Yds having plinth area of 200 sq Ft of ACC situated at Surabhi Colony, Serilingampally village, Serilingamaply tt4andal, Ranga Reddy district without reference to the letter dt 01- 05- 2017 issued by the respondent No. 4 . lA NO: 1 OF 202{ I petition urrder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue interim directionr; to the respondent No. 3 to forthwith receive, register and release the sate deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the schedule property i. e House bearing lMunicipal No 20- 1/sc/124 (PTIN No 1119962779) admeasuring 140 sq yds having plinth area of 200 sq Ft of ACC situated at Surabhi Colony, Serilingampally village, Serilingamaply Mandal, Ranga Reddy district without reference to ther letter dt 01- 05- 2017 issued by the respondent No. 4 pending disposal of writ Petition. COUNSEI fOr thc PCtitiONCT: SRt RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER ,1 ' 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 16g4a OF 2Ci24 ORDER:
1. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive and thereby the Writ Petition has become infructuous.
Operative part
2. Recording the aforementioned submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if an/,, shall stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY//
1. One CC to Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate I 2. Two CCs to GP for Stamps And Registration, High Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] SD/- U. SUDHA REGIS CTION OFFICER the State of
3. Two CD Copies TJ GJP Nr HIGH COURT SK,J DATED:16/09/2025 .ORDER WP.No.16948 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUG:TUOUS WITHOUT COSTS t \ EOrF $h\ tst ?. 1 ijJ'. ,*i- 1i. :) () () ' -l.i: "^ - "-'" G ,'\')"t ,rN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.