ALOK ARADHE, N. V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Revenue Department – Appellant
Versus
V. Tulasiram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Alok Aradhe, J.)
This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated 05.06.2009 by which the writ petition preferred by respondents No.1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as, “the land owners”) has been allowed and the memo dated 21.06.2005 issued by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, has been quashed. In order to appreciate the challenge of the appellants to the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.
2. The land owners had purchased the land bearing Survey Nos.122 to 126, 143 to 150, 152/A, 152/B, 153 and 154 admeasuring Acs.185.18 guntas situated at Sultanpally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as, “the subject land”) vide registered sale deeds in the year 1982 from the original pattadars, namely Syed Shabuddin and Syed Karar Hyder Hussain. The land owners claim to be in possession of the subject land and have been issued pattadar pass books and title deeds.
3. After abolition of the jagir and announcement of survey and settlement of the village, the kancha land was auctioned by the Tahsildar in the year 1950-51 for Rs.1000.00 in favour of one Sri Prabhu Lin
Sarwanlal v. State of Hyderabad
R. Hanumaiah v. State of Karnataka : (2010) 5 SCC 203
S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India : AIR 1967 SC 1274
Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav : (2018) 12 SCC 527
Smt. P.Mangamma v. The Women’s Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare : (2002) 5 SCC 685
State of U.P v. Brahm Datt Sharma : (1987) 2 SCC 179
Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse : (2004) 3 SCC 440
Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2006) 12 SCC 33
Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories : (2007) 13 SCC 270
Mohd. Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim : (1997) 6 SCC 71
B.S. Sheshagiri Setty v. State of Karnataka : (2016) 2 SCC 123
Claims for land ownership after significant delays must be addressed by civil courts, as administrative bodies cannot adjudicate on disputed titles without violating established rights.
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
A land title claim cannot be raised after a significant delay; jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court for disputed ownership.
The judgment underscores the importance of revenue records in establishing land ownership and the burden on the government to prove its title in land disputes.
The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant records and providing reasons for decisions in adjudicating land disputes under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Boo....
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.