Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A.B. C., J
Jampana Ravi Kishore – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge administrative orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. property ownership and historical claims analyzed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. counterclaims regarding construction permissions. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. judicial authority asserted in property disputes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. scrutiny of jurisdiction in the facts presented. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. prior rulings referenced for current permissions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. final decision against interference. (Para 29 , 30) |
ORDER :
2. The contempt case is filed alleging violation of the interim orders passed by this Court on 26.11.2024 in IA.No.1 of 2024, whereby this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' property for an extent of 1743 Square Yards in TS.No.1031, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Limits.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Murthy, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners purchased the property vide a registered sale deed on 31.07.2015. However, the Sub-Registrar did not release the registered document; the document was issued a pending No.P 383 of 2015. It is also submitted that the 2ndpetitioner filed an appeal before the District Registrar and Appellate
Judicial review cannot adjudicate property title claims while assessing administrative actions; these should be properly contested in court.
The respondent No. 2 cannot take shelter under the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 69/2001. The building permission granted without considering the objections was bad, arbitrary, and against t....
Point of law: There is a presumption that public officials would discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with law. Even administrative power to be exercised to fulfill real purpose and not ....
Natural justice must be upheld in administrative proceedings, and disputes of ownership should be resolved before competent authorities, with the speaking order being appealable.
Point of law : Respondents 5 to 11 are the bona-fide purchasers and they are subject to various litigations, subsequently Government has considered the representation/appeal filed by the respondents,....
Building permission must be obtained with full disclosure of all relevant facts, including pending litigation; failure to do so constitutes misrepresentation under Section 450 of the GHMC Act.
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
