Back
UJJAL BHUYAN, C. V. BHASKAR REDDY
Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – Appellant
Versus
A. P. Electrical Equipment Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of both Writ Appeal Nos. 665 and 670 of 2022.
2. We have heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel representing learned Advocate General, State of Telangana for the appellants and Mr. V.Ramesh, learned counsel for Mr. A.Chandra Shaker, learned counsel representing the respondent.
3. Writ appeal No. 665 of 2022 arises out of W.P.No. 11293 of 2009 filed by the respondent as the writ petitioner, whereas writ appeal No. 670 of 2022 arises out of W.P.No. 23477 of 2010 also filed by the respondent.
4. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as per their status in the writ appeals, i.e. appellants and respondent.
5. At the outset, we may advert to the facts as pleaded in the writ proceedings. Writ petition No. 11293 of 2009 was filed by the respondent seeking a declaration that the action of the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any reason or proceeding is arbitrary and highhanded. Consequently, a direction was sought for
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....
Possession of land must be actual and not symbolic; unauthorized dispossession during litigation renders such actions void under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
Notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is issued to him to surrender such possession to the State Government, or the authorized officer or the competent autho....
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.
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 appellants, a series of so called bona fide Purchasers, have kept this lis alive against the State Government and those 83 allottees, who were allotted their lands out of such excess land vested ....
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
