Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.Vinod Kumar, P.SREE SUDHA
M.Jagadishwar – Appellant
Versus
M.Bharathi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for possession of property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners argue against dismissal of their claim. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. interlocutory applications filed regarding property. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. respondents assert ownership of property. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. special court's findings on jurisdiction and evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. apex court's ruling on definition of land under the act. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. court's view on maintainability of applications. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 8. writ petition allowed; orders set aside. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
ORDER :
(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)
Since, the issue involved in this Writ Petition and the Contempt Case are inter-connected both the matters are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , is filed by the petitioners, with the following prayer:
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Certiorari calling the records in LGA.No.13/2008 dated 18.01.2010 passed by Special Court Under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition
The definition of 'land' under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act includes buildings, allowing jurisdiction over claims involving both land and structures.
Possession without legal title constitutes land grabbing; the court affirmed the applicants' valid ownership based on registered sale deeds, invalidating the respondents' claims.
The court affirmed that possession without legal title constitutes land grabbing, rejecting the petitioners' claim of adverse possession due to lack of evidence.
The court upheld the Special Court's order declaring the petitioner a land grabber, affirming that ownership cannot be claimed through unregistered agreements of sale without valid title.
Successors in interest inherit legal liabilities of their vendors, and the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act applies to properties with buildings.
The court affirmed that continuous possession for over 30 years can establish title by adverse possession, and mere allegations of land grabbing require substantial proof of unlawful occupation.
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
