Back
SUREPALLI NANDA
Mohammed Sameer – Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer under Andhra Pradesh Public Premises – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
3. The case of the petitioners in brief, is that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the owners and possessors of the property to an extent of 1331 square yards (0.11 guntas) and 703 sq. yards respectively situated in Sy. No. 26, Theegalpahad village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District and they executed a registered lease deed in favour of
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles and proper procedural considerations in eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises Act.
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists, unless there are violations of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the petitioners' claim as landholders and the claim of unauthorized occupation by the Estate Officer should be decided by ....
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
