Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Masjid Mohammadia – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. W.P.No.20581 of 2015 is filed with the following prayer:
“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the high handed action of the 3rd respondent in trying to interfere and demolish the room under house bearing Municipal No.1-9-898/A/1, admeasuring 150 sq. yards situated at Adikmet, Hyderabad, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner or without following the procedure contemplated under law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice and also as against the provisions of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, without following the procedure contemplated under law, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. W.P.No.24769 of 2015 is filed with the following prayer.
“… to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in erecting the notice b
Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for adjudicating disputes regarding property titles; such matters should be resolved through civil courts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitations of summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in adjudicating disputes regarding possession and title of immo....
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot resolve disputed title and possession over land; civil suit is appropriate remedy. Section 23(1)(a) of U.P. Zamindari Act bars recognition of post-1948 tran....
The court held that property ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ proceedings when title questions are contested.
Possession of property cannot be disturbed without due process; rights must be protected under constitutional provisions, and authorities are bound by statutory timelines and requirements.
A person in possession of property cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, even if the possession is unauthorized or illegal.
The court affirmed that prior judgments are binding unless set aside, and jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to challenge such judgments without appropriate legal action.
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
