Back
ALOK ARADHE, J. SREENIVAS RAO
N. Indiramma, W/o. Late Srinivasa Chary – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Law and Legislature Department, Rep. by its Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
J. Sreenivas Rao, J.
Heard Sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1, Sri K.S. Suneel, learned counsel representing Chandrasen Law Offices appears for petitioner No.2 and Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Herur Rajesh Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Petitioners filed this writ petition seeking declaration of the Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (‘Rules’ for brevity) as ultra vires to object Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (‘Act’ for brevity) and contrary to Section 3 and 4 of Andhra Pradesh District Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 and further declare the Rule 18 of Rules as null and void.
3. Brief facts of case:
3.1 The claim of the petitioner No.1 is that her husband namely late Nambakkam Sreenivas Chary is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas in Survey No.956 and Acs.4.17 guntas in Survey No.957, total comes to Acs.7.10 guntas situated at Metpally Village, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. After the death of h
Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 is valid and consistent with Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, affirming th....
The court clarified the scope of the power and jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 103 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, and emphasized that the application filed under the s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorization to be given by the Collector under section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is not regulated by the prescrip....
Point of law: Under sub-section (4) of Section 11, any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision can file a civil suit to contest the order. The vendors had co....
The court ruled that while the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act suo motu, the Joint Collector's revisional powers were valid in addressing fraudulent claims over government land.
Deputy Collector could not have invoked suo motu jurisdiction after one year from the date of passing of any order passed by the Mamlatdar.
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
