Back
T. VINOD KUMAR
M. Yadaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Since the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same and the issues are intertwined the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
W.P. No. 1136 of 2017:
2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of 4th respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner on 29.01.2006 to grant permission for construction of residential house in plot of land admeasuring 133.33 square yards and not considering the representation dated 26.09.2016, as being arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
W.P. No. 22483 of 2024:
3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner had sought to declare the action of respondent in interfering into the petitioner’s property without issuing any notice or giving lawful intimation and not following due procedure established by law, as being illegal and arbitrary.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development for respondent No. 1, Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Municipal Corporation and perused the record.
5. Petitioner contends that he having purchased the plot of land admeasu
Disputes regarding property title and identification cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and must be resolved through civil remedies.
Authorities are bound by survey reports in property disputes, and arbitrary rejection of building permission violates procedural fairness.
Point of law: Disputed question cannot be decided in the Writ. Only instances are given. This order will not limit the rights of parties. Whatever issues are touched upon by this Court in the precedi....
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of land regularization can be based on public interest, and the status of the land as surplus land under the Urban Land Ceiling ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorized constructions and the absence of automatic sub-division of the plot led to the rejection of the Petitioners' application for rete....
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
