Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.Lakshman
B.Leela – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
K. Lakshman, J.
Heard Mr. K. Jamali, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.25248 of 2024, Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 and Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.25071 of 2024, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P. Nos.25248 and 7982 of 2024 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in W.P. No.25071 of 2024, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 in W.P. Nos.25248 of 2024 and 25071 of 2024, Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, while Mr. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024.
2. As the lis involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same though the petitioners are different, all these writ petitions were heard together and the same are being disposed of by way of this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No.25248 of 2024.
3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 are claiming
The survey and issuance of pattadar passbooks without adhering to principles of natural justice are invalid, necessitating proper notice and opportunity for all parties involved.
The court held that surveys affecting property rights must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring notifications to all interested parties, particularly in urban properties under the ROR A....
The court ruled that parties must await the resolution of pending suits regarding land ownership before seeking further legal relief, emphasizing the prohibition of actions that interfere with ongoin....
The finality of judgments and decrees, and the ineffectiveness of attempts to challenge them, was a central legal principle established in the judgment.
The court emphasized the need for the Additional Collector to resolve disputed ownership claims under the Tenancy Act, ensuring due process and notice to all parties involved.
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
