WRIT PETITION No: 11401 of 2005 v. Godavari District
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner did not subsist even on the date on which the writ petition was filed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing notice in the form of Form-I No. dated 2-4-2005 (though not specifically stated) as one under Rule 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No. 379, Rev. (Endts-I) Department, dated 13-3-2003, by invoking the provisions of Sec. 83 of the Act 30/87 as unconstitutional, ultravires to Sec. 83 of the Act 30/87 and set aside the same and declare that the proposed action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioner from the schedule property in Sy.Nos. 370/2, and old 369/2 new S.No. 484 of Ramavaram Village, Jaggampeta Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and pass such other order orders as are deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. V.T.M. PRASAD The Court made the following:
ORDER:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) None appears for the petitioner.
Petitioner questions the action of the fifth respondent – Choultry in issuing auction notification dated 02.04.2005 to auction the usufruct of the Choultry land as illegal and ultravires of Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
This Court while admitting the writ petition on 24.05.2005 directed the parties to maintain status quo. The fifth respondent filed vacate stay petition in WVMP.No.2256 of 2008 contending that, in fact, the writ petitioner was not in possession of the said land as on the date of obtaining the order of status quo on 24.05.2005 and he vacated the land in April 2005. Thereafter, the SC Corporation became the highest bidder on auctioning the said land and the same was in possession till 30.04.3008. Again, the land was auctioned on
13.06.2008 for the year 2008-09 to 2010-11 and one K. Veeranjaneyulu and K. Mangayamma became successful bidders of the said land in question.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner did not subsist even on the date on which the writ petition was filed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous vacating the interim order granted on 24.05.2005. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J January 23, 2009 DSK
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.