SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16418

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J
Yeshaboina Srisaialm – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.30786 of 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Jaipal Reddy
For the Respondents: P. Sreedhar Rao, R. Urmila Yadav

A writ petition seeking to prevent eviction becomes infructuous if the eviction has already been carried out, although the party may still seek remedies in an appropriate forum for procedural lapses.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Eviction and Demolition - Where the eviction has already been carried out, the cause of action for seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent such eviction no longer survives. (Para 5)

(B) Procedural Due Process - Right to Notice - Liberty granted to the aggrieved party to approach the appropriate forum if the eviction was carried out without following due process of law. (Para 6)

Issues: Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication after the eviction of the petitioners has already been effected.

Table of Content
1. filing of writ petition and appearance of counsel. (Para 1 , 2)
2. dispute over whether eviction occurred and if notice was given. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petition closed as infructuous with liberty to seek other remedies. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the respondent authorities in wanting to demolish the petitioners properties by summarily evicting them without following due process of law by giving notice and conducting enquiry as per law as illegal, arbitrary and is against the right to hold property guaranteed under the Constitution of India and opposed to the judicial pronouncements and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. D. Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Sreedhar Rao, learned counsel representing Ms. R. Urmila Yadav, learened Standing Counsel for Khammam Municipality, for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the petitioners have already been evicted pursuant to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.28860 of 1996 and, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that no procedure has been followed and, in fact, no notice has been issued to the petitioners prior to the alleged eviction by the respondents.

5. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the opinion that no cause survives for adjudication in the present writ petition, inasmuch as the eviction is stated to have already been effected.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. However, having regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no procedure has been followed and no notice has been issued prior to the alleged eviction, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance, if so advised, with regard to the subsequent developments. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top