Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    Ahmedunnisa Begum Petitioner (Petitioner In Wp No. 32159 Of 2018 On The File Of High Court) v. State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development Department And Others (S) (S In-Do-).

    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 suspend the operation of the proceedings dt.20-08-2018 vide Lr. No. A2./NMC.-4318.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 2 by directing him not to delete the name of the Petitioner in any manner from the municipal records in respect of the properties covered in Municipal bearing No. 11-2-151 belonging to her husband and her properties covered in Municipal Nos. 11-2-159, 11-2-160 and 11-2-161 near the Dargah Hazrath Shah Kamal Biya Rani, situated at Kanteshwar, Nizamabad, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition No. 32159 of 2018, on the file of the High Court.

    The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following (The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case)

    The Order of the Court was delivered by

    Challa Kodanda Ram, J.:— Admittedly, the mutation was made in favour of the petitioner in 1983. By virtue of the impugned proceedings dated 20.08.2018, petitioner's name was directed to be deleted in the Assessment Register.

    2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the alleged mutation was done at the instance of the 4 respondent. In other words, the finding recorded in the impugned proceedings is that the subject property belongs to Wakf Board.

    3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the 4 respondent has no interest in the subject property.

    4. Though the matter underwent five adjournments, no counter affidavit is filed by the official respondents.

    5. Hence, there shall be interim suspension, as prayed for, for a period of four weeks.

    6. Post on 28.02.2019. In the meanwhile, the official respondents to file counter.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ahmedunnisa Begum Pe... v. State Of Telangana, ...
    (Jan 31, 2019)