SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
E. Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and another – Respondent


ORDER:

"Notice to 2'd respondent.

Personal notice is permitted. /

List on 09-06-2022, .

In the complaint the allegations against A-l is that he haq trespassed into the land belongs to the 2'd respondent in Sy.No.663 of Dundigal village. The allegation against A-2 is that he has given consent to the sale ofhis land admeasuring Ac.3-20 gts., '

of land in Sy.No.662 in terms, of MOU.

Sri H. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that A-2 never entered into any MOU and he has not given consent to sell the land and he is nothing to do with the land in Sy.No.662 and he is owner of land in Sy.No.663 admeasuring Ac.3-20 gts, In the complaint it is also alleged that the petitioner hcr€in has already entered into an agreement in the year 2017 to sell the land to the 2od respondent.

Sri H. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, would submit that A-2 never entered into any agreement of sale either in 2017 or thereafter with 2nd respondent to sell his land admeasuring Ac.3-20 gts., in Sy.No.662 ofDundigal village. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Prima facie, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top