Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
Sai Srinivasa Residential Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
As the issue involved in all these matters is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. The petitioners have filed the batch of writ petitions before this Court vide WP Nos.37848, 37855, 37856, 37858, 37869, 37872, 37889, 37890, 37897, 37906, 37955, 37956, & 37957/2014 challenging the action of the respondent no.2 in not regularizing the occupation of the petitioners on par with the other occupants in the survey number, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. The grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions are that they have purchased the lands in different extents in Survey No.275 and 275/D1 of Adavivaram Village, Chinagadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, through registered sale deeds. The 2nd respondent informed to the petitioners that the subject lands in Adavivaram, granted pattas to them i.e., respondent No.2 devasthanam. For regularization of the illegal encroachments, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Entds.IV) Department dated 19.8.2000 stipulating a time within which applications should be made for considering or regularization purportedly under the provisio to Section 80(1) (c) o
The court established that land regularization claims must be substantiated by ownership rights, which the petitioners failed to demonstrate.
The court ruled that authorities must respect due process before dispossessing individuals from their land, declaring arbitrary actions illegal.
Regularization of unauthorized occupation of government land cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when public interest is involved, and applications must be evaluated based on the law i....
Limited scope of review applications and the need for compliance with government policies and regulations regarding encroachments on government land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were followed in the regularisation of land, and the court upheld the righ....
The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to regularization of the property due to lack of evidence supporting their claims and the rightful ownership of the 5th respondent based on fami....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
