Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Bhukya Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
Cheemala Pushpa, W/o. Nageswara Rao – Respondent
ORDER :
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order passed in CMA No.1 of 2021, dated 26.10.2022 by the Court of Agent to Government, Khammam.
2. Petitioner is the respondent and respondent is the appellant in CMA No.1 of 2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Court of Agent to Government, Khammam is contrary to law, evidence on record and probabilities of the case. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the order of the Mobile Court in IA No.56 of 2011 in OS.No.87 of 2011 is dated 27.08.2018, whereas the Appeal was filed in the year 2021 beyond limitation. The learned Court of Agent to Government, Khammam ought to have seen that the pahanies clearly shows that the petitioner is in possession and the claim of the respondent herein is different as observed by the learned Mobile Court i.e., survey number is different between both the claims and prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Agent to Government at Khammam.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Court of Agent to Government, Khammam has rightly ap
The court affirmed that the lower court's failure to verify legal titles and adherence to land transfer regulations invalidated its injunction order, demonstrating the significance of procedural corr....
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine land title disputes, which must be settled in civil courts, rendering related appeals maintainable under proper legal challenges.
The main legal point established is the finality of litigation and the legal certainty conferred by the judgment and decree in favor of the petitioner, along with the award from the Permanent Lok Ada....
A quasi-judicial order must be communicated to affected parties to be valid; failure to do so renders the order unenforceable.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction to protect possession pending trial, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence in property disputes.
Order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, is an interim order and it is not required to mention about each and every document produced on record.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate land title disputes; such matters must be resolved by Civil Courts under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886.
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
