IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar
Mohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
Abul Qair Naseeruddin Kamran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case context and background regarding the issuance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. discussion on the authority and responsibility of the officer in relation to the act. (Para 11 , 12 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. conclusion and directive issued by the court addressing costs and resolution timeline. (Para 17 , 20 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 24.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10368 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner against the inaction of the appellant (the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition) in failing to consider the representation dated 27.03.2024 made by the writ petitioner and sought for a direction on the respondents therein including the appellant (respondent No.8) to complete the proceedings pending under the repealed Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (‘the 1951 Act’). The direction, as prayed for in the Writ Petition, addressing unresolved issues concerning the lands in four Survey Numbers i.e., Sy.No.122/1 admeasuring Acs.10.21 gts., Sy.No.396/2 admeasuring Ac.1.16 gts., Sy.No.438 admeasuring Acs.17.22 gts. and Sy.No.396/4 admeasuring Acs.13
Authority under the Evacuee Interest Act persists post-repeal, ensuring resolution of pending claims amidst administrative neglect.
principle of res-judicata- Once the proceedings got concluded by judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan (supra), any subsequent proceedings on th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for pending appeals to be decided before making any changes to property entries, as well as the jurisdiction of civil courts and the ba....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Civil Court's jurisdiction was ousted, the plaintiffs could succeed in insisting on following the procedure under Section 12 of the ....
Act, 1954 does not stipulate any permission of the Custodian General for disposal, by sale, of evacuee properties. Thus, no permission of the Custodian General was required to dispose of the disputed....
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.