IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SARATH
P.Dheeraj Ranga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department – Respondent
ORDER :
K.Sarath, J.
1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the action of the respondent/ Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District in entertaining and registering the Cancellation Deeds dated 23.09.2017, pursuant to the letter No.E1/4294/2017 dated 22.09.2017 addressed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, who has addressed letter to the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad in Lr.No.1604/2017 dated 23.09.2017 to cancel Seventeen (17) sale deeds including the sale deed of the petitioner in WP No.36478 of 2017 and sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioners in WP Nos.16657 of 2020 and 1280 of 2024 in respect of lands covered in Sy.Nos.38, 54, 55 and 56 situated at Bahadurguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’), without issuing any notice to the petitioners or their respective vendors and requested to revive the cancelled documents.
2. Since the lis involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, Sri S.Srinivasa Chary, and K.Sridhara Chary,
State of Uttaranchal and Another vs., Sunil Kumar Vaish and others
Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs., Government of Andhra Pradesh
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S.P.Velayutham and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.