Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.Krishna Mohan
Pydi Varahalamma W/o Late Pydi Krishna Sarma – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh Department – Respondent
ORDER :
B.Krishna Mohan, J.
W.P.No.8176 of 2008
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the notification dated 07.07.2007 published dated 12.07.2007 and the consequential orders in proceedings No.G1/10571/76, dated 05.02.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent/Special Officer and Competent Authority, Hyderabad.
3. The 1st petitioner is the mother and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are her major sons.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that Sri Pydi Appanna, father-in-law of the 1st petitioner, Sri Pydi Krishna Sharma, husband of the 1st petitioner and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the absolute owners of the land in an extent of Ac.3-52 cents in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam.
(i) A registered lease deed bearing document No.1138/1964 dated 22.04.1964 was executed in favour of M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Limited/5th respondent, for a period of 99 years. In pursuance of the same, the 5th respondent established a factory comprising three huge factory sheds admeasuring 2043.00 sq. mts., 2043.00 sq. mts. and 2198.83 sq. mts. wit
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.
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.
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....
plain language of sub-section (5) of Section 10 means and envisages a notice in writing in the form of an order to surrender or make over the possession to the State. Sub-Section (5) notice is not in....
Proceedings issued under the Urban Land Ceiling Act against a deceased declarant are null and void; possession must be established prior to claiming surplus land.
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.
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
