J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
A. P. Electrical Equipment Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are same, the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. “…..One of the first and highest duties of all courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the Suitors, and when the expression ‘the act of the Court’ is used, it does not mean merely the act of the Primary Court, or of any intermediate Court of appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole, from the lowest Court which entertains jurisdiction over the matter up to the highest Court which finally disposes of the case.” [Privy Council in Alexander Rodger Charles Carnie v. Comproir D’Escompte De Paris, 1871 Law Reports 3 Privy Council 475]
3. These appeals arise from a common judgment and order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana and Hyderabad dated 03.01.2022 in Writ Appeal No. 665 of 2022 and Writ Appeal No. 670 of 2022 respec
State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 [Para 50]
State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, (2015) 5 SCC 321 [Para 16
J. Sarada Govardhini v. Special Officer and Competent Authority
Gonguluri Srinivasa Sharma and Anr. v. Government of AP and Ors.
Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Ors.
Dip Co. Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. through Purshottam S. Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 [Para 17]
Jasbir Singh Chhabara and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Sunil Kumar Vaish and Others
Omprakash Verma v. State of A.P.
Balmokand Khati Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab (1996) 4 SCC 212 [Para 17]
Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswan (1996) 8 SCC 259 [Para 17]
State of Maharashtra v. B.E. Billimoria
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India
Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan [(1994) 3 SCC 440 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 785 [Para 26]
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.
Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.
Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P.
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana
Vipin Chandra Vadilal Bavishi v. State of Gujarat
State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma
Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax
Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (Dead) by L.Rs. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 99 [Para 36]
Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality reported in AIR 1970 SC 602 [Para 51]
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ehsan & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 906 [Para 52]
The court ruled that actual physical possession must be established for the State to validly claim ownership under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and procedural requirements for n....
The court held that statutory compliance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is mandatory for valid dispossession, emphasizing that mere vesting does not equate to possession.
Possession of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act must be established lawfully; mere vesting does not equate to possession, especially post-repeal.
Failure to issue mandatory notices under the Urban Land Act invalidates state claims of land possession, allowing petitioners to retain ownership rights based on ongoing lawful occupancy.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.