Nimma l{smsirnha Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

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, Order or Direction moie particutarly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent no.3 in taken possession of the property bearing Door No. 8-2-293l82lJllll70, Plot No.70, Road No.71, Phase lll, forming part of Sy Nos. 403/1 (old) 120 (new) of Shaikpet Village and 1O211 oi Hakeempet village admeasuring 7'16 sq yards situated at Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad including building therein instead of Plot No. 70, Block lll, Ward No. 08, Block no.02, Jubilee Hills, Road No.10, Hyderabad - 500 034, Andhra Pradesh, illegally in violation of the Orders issued by the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay dated 29.02.2016 is illegal and arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent no.3 to handover the premises to the petitioner forthwith. :.i, |.A.NO:1 OF 4gi6 (WPMP.NO:10288 OF 2016) 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 rgpondent no.3 to handover premises bearing Door No. 8-2- 293t82lJllll70i,'Plot No.70, consisting of duplex house, Road No.71, Phase lll, forming part of Sy Nos. 4A311 (old) 120 (new) of Shaikpet Village & 10211 of Hakeempet village admeasuring 716 sq yards situated at Jubilee Hills Cooperative FJouse Building Society Ltd., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad to the petitioner forthwith, [enOing disposal of the main writ petition. Counselfor the Petitioner : SRI R.SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsetfor tb Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P.RAMACHANDRAN The Court made the following ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER: This \7rit Petition is filed under Anicle 226 of C-onstitution of India seeking the following reliefls:- "--.. to issue a'$rrfu, order or Direction more particularlyin the narure of writ of trthndamus, declaring the action of the respondent no.3 in talen possession of the propeny bearing boor No.8-2- 293/52/IIII/70, Plot No.70, Road No.71, Phase III, forming pan of Sy.Nos. 403/t (old) 120 (".*) of Shailpet Village aad {02/t of Flaleempet village admeasuring 716 sqyards siruated at Jubilee Ffills C-ogRgratiye Housg Building Sociery Ltd., Jubilee Ffills, Hyderabad including building therein instead of Plot No. 20, Block Ill, \flard No. 08, Block no.02, Jubilee lills, Road No.10, Flderabad - 500 034, Andhr:a Pradesh, illegally in violation of the Orders issued by the Cotrn Receiver, F[gt Courr, Bombay dated 29.02.2016 is illegal and artitrary and violation of principles of natural jtstice and consequentlydirea the respondent no.3 to handover the premises to the petitioner fonhwith... ."

2. Fleard I\&.RSiva Sai Swarup, leamed counsel petitioner and I\rlr.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Ftrome appearing for respondent Nos.1 ro 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submia that respondent No. 3 attempted to take possession of the property bearing Door 2 No. 8-2-293/82fiIII/70 in violation of the orders issued by the Coun Receiver, F[gh Cout of Bombay. on thar basis, md seeking necessarydirections, the presenr petition has been filed.

4. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Flome submits that, pursuant to the directions of the Coun Receiver, F[gh C-otrn of Bombay, police protection u/as extended vfiile sreps were being taken for possession of the propercy. It is assened that no independent action was initiated by the respondent police in relation to taking possession of rhe propeffy.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner had borrowed a certain surn of money, and upon default, steps w'ere tal.rcn before the Cotut Receiver, F[gh Cotrn of Bombay. Pursuant to the orders passed therein, police aid was sought while initiating possession proceedings. Flowever, ir is contended that, at the time when possession vras being taken, the '.----*__l.- entire outstanding dues were cleared, resulting in the termination of 3 the contract. Consequently, the property was ne-ver actually taken into possession, and therefore, the very cause of this petition no longer survives.

6. I have carefullyperused the material on reconC. \

7. From the petitioner's pleadings, it is evident that the ProPerqy t * in question was. proposed to be taken into possession under the orden of the Court Receiver, HIgh C-ourt of Bombay, arising out of the contract and steps initiated by respondent No. 4. Flowever, as per the submissions of respondent No. 4, thepetitioner cleared all dues, and the contract stood terminated on 23.12.20L7. This demonstrates that even the proceedings before the C-oun Receiver, Flgh Court of Bomb ay,havereached their logical conclusion.

8. In view of the developments that transpired during the pendency of this petition, and as the foundational cause itself has been concluded, the grievance raised by the petitioner does not survive for adjudication. 4 (

9. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as infrucruous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneor.rs Petitions, pending rf arry,shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII To 1

2. 3. 4. SA PMK Two CCs to Gp FOR Hyderabad .lo One CC to SWARUP Advocate One CC to SRt P.RAMAC HANDRAN, Advocate Two CD Copies HOME, High Court for the SRI R.SIVA SAI UTI I J ALI SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED i0210912025 t I I I I I i I '.i ;,{ ORDER WP.No.8104 of 2016 ..'7-'''=:=::''-' .-'.1t'-rl- 1 t" r.: -i f,''+ ; 1' 22 8EC mffi l) t, r r.t:' ! $ * DISMISSING THE W.P AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS. -{fivr