Sri. Chinthapalli Satyanarayana Rao v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Revenue
The Joint Collector, Rajanna Sirsilla District, (Formerly Karimnagar District).
The Revenue Divisional Officer, At Sirsilla, Rajanna Sirsilla District, (Formerly Karimnagar District).
The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sirsilla District. (Formerly Karimnagar District)
Sri. Ramagiri Chandrasekhar Rao, Sio. Tirupati Rao, Rl/o. Anupu Vemulawada Mandal Rural, Rajanna Sirsilla District, (Formerly District). ram Village, Karimnagar 6 Sri. Regulapati Haricharan Rao, S/o.Venkat Narsing Rao Aged about 49 years, FUo. Anupuram Village, Vemulawada Mandal Rural, Rajanna Sirsilla District. (Folmerly Karimnagar District) " Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia?rayinQ-that*rR-the- ...RESPONDENTS -stated circumstances in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Pattadar Pass Book vide Passbook No.T19120140258 dateU 28.5.2019 to the 6th respondent in respect of land in Sy.No.405 to an extent of Ac.3-37 gts situated at Anupuram Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sirsilla District as arbitrary, itlegal, unjust without notice, and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land And Pa:tadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and A.P. Rights in Land And Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia besides violating the of principles of natural justice and consequently declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and'non-est in the eye of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2r)19 Petition under 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 direct the 6th respondent not to create any third party rights in respect of land in Sy.No.405 to an extent of Ac.3-37 gts situated at Anupuram Village, Vemulawada trlandal, Rajanna Sirsilla District pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition rtnder 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 suspend the [)attadar Pass Book vide Passbook No.T19120140258 dated 28.5.2019 issue:d by the 4th respondent to the 6th respondent in respect tf land in Sy.lrlo.405 to an extent of Ac.3-37 gts situated at Anupuram Village, Vemulawada Mirndal, Rajanna Sirsilla District. lA NO: 3 OF 2019 Between: Sri. Regulerpati Haricharan Rao, S/o.Venkat Narsi years, Fl/o. Vemulawada Mand District. (Fo D Rao Aged about 49 Rural, Rajanna Sirsilla 5 ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.6 AND
1. Sri. Chintl^apalli Satyanarayana Rao, Sio. Datta Rao, aged about 53 vears. Occ..Ag.ric.rlture, RUo. Dharmaram Village, Konraopet Man'dat, Rajanna Sirsilla District (Formerly Karimnagar District). ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 The State Department, of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Collector, Rajanna Sirsilla District, (Formerly Karimnagar District). 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, At Sirsilla, Rajanna Sir:silla District, (Formerly Karimnagar District). 5 The Tahsildar, Vemulawada [Vandal, Rajanna Sirsilla Oisiiict. (Formerly Karimnagar District) 6 Sri. Ramagiri Chandrasekhar Rao, S/o. Tirupati Rao, R/o. Anupuram Village, Vemulawada [Vlandal Rural, Rajanna Slrsilla District, (Formerly Karimnagar District). ... RESPON DE NTS/RESPON DE NTS Petition under 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 vacate the interim order dated 20-09-2019 passed in l.A.No.2/19 in WP.No. 1gg42t2019 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANIL KOMMIREDDY, REP. SRI C.HARI PREETH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counselfor the Respondent No.5: SRI K.AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI L.VENKATESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER a - \ IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDEABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT pETITION No.19942 of 2Ot9 : O6. oL.20/26 Between Chintha; ralli Satyanarayana Rao AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue l)epartment, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ORDER: Petitioner ...Respondents I I This; rvrit petition is filed seeking followi,g relief: "To declare the action of the 4th respond.ent in issuizg Pattadar pass Book uid.e passbook No-T191201402s8 dated 2g.s.2019 to ttrc 6th respondent in re:;pect of land in Sy.No.4OS to an ertent of Ac.3_37 gts situated at. Anupuram Village, Vemulautida Mandal, Rajanma Sirsilla District, as illegal, arbitrary and. for co nsc, que ntial relief. " 2- Sri r\nil Kommireddy, learned counser representing sri c. Hari Pre:eth, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and learned Ass; istant Government pleader for Revenue are present.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ petition.
4. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. 2 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand { dismissed. To, SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// OFFICER
1. One CC to SRI C.HARI PREETH, Advocate 2. One CC to SRI K.AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI L.VENKATESWARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] i4.. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at t ' 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BSR u HIGH COURT DATED: 06/0112026 ORDER WP.No.19942 of 2019 (] L) (( , S , ? I Jrt'l 2025 .! i, - r^ ' i , 1 . _.; ' .- . ..'-./ ,.j -?2 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION + AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS \) \rt" v
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.