Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Kondaveeti Bhaskar Raju S/o Kondaveeti Appala Raju – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order No.D/78/2015 dated 8-7-2015 of the 3rd respondent in respect of land in Sy.No.79 admeasuring Ac.5.39 cents situated at Chinnasiddapur village, Bejjur Mandal, Komaram Bheem Asifabad District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT and Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and consequently set aside the order No.D/78/2015 dated 8-7-2015 of the 3rd respondent in respect of the above said land and pass such further order or other orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard learned counsel representing the advocate on record, Ms. D. Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.5.39 cents in Survey No.79 situated at Chinnasiddapur Village, Bejjur Mandal. Father of petitioner purchased the said land by way of simple sale de
A simple sale deed cannot be regularized after a lengthy delay without adhering to statutory procedures, highlighting jurisdiction issues and due process in land disputes.
The main legal point established is that the absence of permission and validation under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1950 renders a sale transaction void and unlawful.
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The exercise of revisional power under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act after a significant delay is improper and violates principles of natural justice.
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to issue mutation orders upheld when confirmed ownership certificates exist, superseding prior claims based on disputed titles.
The court ruled that delayed administrative actions undermining property rights must be resolved through civil courts, emphasizing the importance of timely legal recourse.
The mutation of self-acquired property requires a relinquishment deed and cannot be authorized by revenue authorities without jurisdiction, particularly when delay in appeal is not condoned.
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
