Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V.VENUGOPAL
Kandadi Venkat Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department – Respondent
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
“…For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner prays that this Honorable Court writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in reserving Case No.E1/1033/2025 on its file for orders on 20.12.2025 pertaining to land admeasuring Ac.2.39 guntas in Survey No.158 of Keesera Dayara Village, Keesera Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and advance final arguments and the action of the 3rd respondent in not acting upon the petitioners applications and memos dated 20.12.2025, 19.12.2025 and 02.12.2025 for furnishing the Note File in File No.J/165/2007 pertaining to the alleged Occupancy Rights Certificate of Late Mr.Ramidi Bal Reddy as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional violative of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to furnish the said Note File to the petitioner permit the petitioner to file his counter affidavit after furnishing of the said Note File and to advance final arguments before reserving the sa
The court upheld the principles of natural justice and declined to interfere at an interlocutory stage in ongoing quasi-judicial proceedings, emphasizing that available remedies remain open for futur....
The Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in granting occupancy rights without notifying interested parties, violating principles of natural justice.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
The finality of judgments and decrees, and the ineffectiveness of attempts to challenge them, was a central legal principle established in the judgment.
The resumption of land under Section 3-B cannot be solely based on observations of land lying fallow; substantial evidence of actual non-use for its intended purpose is required.
A person in possession of property cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, even if the possession is unauthorized or illegal.
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
