Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Prashant K. Lahoti – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal – Respondent
ORDER :
Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No.15746 of 2008, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Procgs. No.E1/9131/76 and E1/9132/76 dated 06-03-2006 under Section 10(6) of the Act in Sy.No.129/55 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, issued in the name of Sri Sardar Balwanth Singh & others as illegal, null and void.…”
3. Writ Petition No.15807 of 2008, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Procgs.No.E1/9131/76 and E1/9132/76 dated 06-03-2006 under Section 10(6) of the Act in Sy.No.129/55 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, issued in the name of Sri Sardar Balwanth Singh & others as illegal, null and void.…”
4. Writ Peti
The court emphasized that failure to follow mandatory procedures in declaring land surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act invalidates such proceedings, reinforcing the necessity of....
Proceedings issued under the Urban Land Ceiling Act against a deceased declarant are null and void; possession must be established prior to claiming surplus land.
The court held that disputed questions of title and possession cannot be resolved in a writ petition, and the petitioners were entitled to remain in possession of the land despite ULC proceedings.
Possession of land must be actual and not symbolic; unauthorized dispossession during litigation renders such actions void under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
Failure to issue notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act to possessors renders dispossession unlawful and results in the abatement of proceedings under Section 4 of the Repealing Act.
The court held that statutory compliance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is mandatory for valid dispossession, emphasizing that mere vesting does not equate to possession.
plain language of sub-section (5) of Section 10 means and envisages a notice in writing in the form of an order to surrender or make over the possession to the State. Sub-Section (5) notice is not in....
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
