Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J
Ruthala Suryanarayanamma – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP – Respondent
ORDER :
(KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.)
Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents.
2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the subject land in an extent of Ac.12.04 cents in Sy. No.95, Tamaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District, pending Agricultural land ceiling proceedings in LCC No.637/NRPM on the file of 3rd respondent – Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional officer, Narsipatnam Division, in order to allot subject land to the beneficiaries of the scheme launched by government viz, “Navaratnalu Pedalandiriki Illu”, without following the procedure, the instant Writ Petition is filed.
3. Pending disposal of the LCC No.637/NRPM on the file of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners challenged the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject land admeasuring the Ac.12.04 cents in Sy. No.95, Tamaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District.
4. It is contended that the petitioner’s father late Ruthala Bangaraiah was cult
A quasi-judicial order must be communicated to affected parties to be valid; failure to do so renders the order unenforceable.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act does not permit retroactive scrutiny of land transfers pre-dating statutory cut-off; failure to follow judicial precedents constitutes a breach of natural j....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
The Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in granting occupancy rights without notifying interested parties, violating principles of natural justice.
An order declaring land surplus issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and violates principles of natural justice, warranting its quashing.
Recognition of rights based on adverse possession and possession prior to the cutoff date under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
Action of the respondents has not been on account of any mala fides but under the belief that they are protecting the property of the State.
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
A party claiming occupancy rights must provide authentic documentation; the reliance on disputed or fabricated orders leads to dismissal of such claims.
The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
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
