Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SARATH
Mohammed Khadeer – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership claims of the petitioners. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's observations on property rights and possession. (Para 3 , 13 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. counterarguments regarding procedural adherence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. improper procedure under the act leads to judgement. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. conclusion: writ petitions allowed, prior orders set aside. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
K.SARATH, J.
As both these writ petitions arise out of the same subject property and the parties are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Both these writ petitions are filed questioning the proceedings No.B2/25443/2017 dated 01.04.2021 and the letter No.B2/25443/2017 dated 02.12.2021 issued by the respondent No.2-Local Officer-cum-District Collector as illegal and arbitrary.
3. Heard Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Mukund Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the eastern portion of the hous
Local authorities must institute a court suit to declare property as escheat under the Act; unilateral declarations without due process are invalid.
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.
Summary eviction proceedings cannot proceed when there is a bona fide dispute regarding property title; such disputes must be resolved in a competent Civil Court.
The court held that property ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ proceedings when title questions are contested.
The court held that leasehold rights are protected and cannot be violated without due process, stating that the property cannot be declared escheated without a legal basis.
The legal proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 will get abated unless physical possession is taken prior to 16.06.1999.
A person in possession of property cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, even if the possession is unauthorized or illegal.
Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for adjudicating disputes regarding property titles; such matters should be resolved through civil courts.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
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
