IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.LAKSHMAN
SSPDL Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
K. Lakshman, J.
Heard Mrs. N. Sasikala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner filed a Memo vide USR No. dated not pressing this writ petition against respondent No.3.
2. CASE OF THE PETITIONER
i) The petitioner had undertaken a project to develop low-cost housing for the benefit of employees of BHEL. The Housing Units were sold to respondent No.4, which in turn, allocated them to the employees of BHEL by taking all necessary permissions including layout approval from HMDA.
ii) In the sanctioned layout plan, dated 03.07.2014 and layout permit dated 21.06.2022, it has categorically mentioned that no road exists. The area in question is specifically designated for ‘future expansion’.
iii) It is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 1.02 guntas in Survey No.191/36, situated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3482 of 2017, dated 03.03.2018 executed by M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited, its sister concern. Thus, it has been in cont
ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik
A writ petition cannot adjudicate serious disputed questions of fact which must be resolved in a competent civil court.
The High Court declined to entertain writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact, directing the petitioner to seek resolution in a competent Civil Court.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of title deeds, court decrees, and reports in determining ownership and legality of road laying, as well as the consideration of ....
The court affirmed that the failure to allot equivalent land or provide compensation for lost property violates Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Administrative authorities cannot adjudicate on title and possession disputes while civil suits are pending, especially when interim injunctions are in place.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.