writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seizing the petitioner’s tractor and trailor bearing registration Nos.AP22Q 8490 and AP04V 5030 respectively, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the seized tractor and trailor. The petitioner pleaded that on 16.12.2015, respondent No.2 seized the above-mentioned tractor and trailor on the allegation that they were used for illegal transportation of sand and that immediately thereafter, he has made an application to respondent No.2 for release of the seized vehicles. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2, who is the competent authority, has refused to receive the application=as per G.O.Ms.No.3, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 08.01.2015, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.15, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 19.02.2015, respondent No.2, who is stated to have seized the vehicles, is competent to release the same. As respondent No.2 is stated to have seized the tractor and trailor, it is appropriate that the said respondent considers release of the seized vehicles.

WP 964 / 2016
WPSR 4015 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
RAMULU PUTTA  VSPRL.SECY., SECY., PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT., HYD., & 2 OTHERS,


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.964 of 2016
Dated 07 th January, 2016
Between: Ramulu Putta …Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev.), Secretariat of Telangana, Hyderabad and others …Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Janardhan Reddy Ponaka
Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj (TS) Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Home (TS) Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:
ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seizing the petitioner’s tractor and trailor bearing registration Nos.AP22Q 8490 and AP04V 5030 respectively, as illegal and arbitrary. 
The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the seized tractor and trailor. The petitioner pleaded that on 16.12.2015, respondent No.2 seized the above-mentioned tractor and trailor on the allegation that they were used for illegal transportation of sand and that immediately thereafter, he has made an application to respondent No.2 for release of the seized vehicles. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2, who is the competent authority, has refused to receive the application.
At the hearing, it is submitted by learned counsel for both parties that as per G.O.Ms.No.3, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 08.01.2015, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.15, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 19.02.2015, respondent No.2, who is stated to have seized the vehicles, is competent to release the same. 
As respondent No.2 is stated to have seized the tractor and trailor, it is appropriate that the said respondent considers release of the seized vehicles. 
The petitioner is accordingly permitted to approach respondent No.2 with a fresh application and within three days of receipt of the said application, respondent No.2 shall consider and pass appropriate order as per the above-mentioned G.Os., for release of the seized tractor and trailor. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WP.M.P.No.1156 of 2016 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07 th January, 2016 VGB

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.