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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15632

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NR, J
Pasumala Rudragowni Shanker Goud – Appellant
Versus
The Collector – Respondent
W.P. No. 21608 of 2012



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:

The court asserted that administrative actions must comply with legal provisions and procedural safeguards, ensuring fairness and due process.

Headnote:The judgment under review primarily rested on the Land Encroachment Act, specifically noting earlier judicial directives regarding construction permissions. The court reiterated its findings on illegal demolition without allowing due process as mandated. The central issue was whether the actions taken by the administrative officer contravened legal provisions. The ruling emphasized the need for adherence to procedural justice, mandating an interim stay against further actions by the respondents.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE NO: W.P. No. 21608 of 2012 PROCEEDING SHEET

SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE
1 . 2 3-07-2012 L NR,J WP No. 21608 of 2012 Rule nisi. Call for records. Notice returnable in four weeks. ____________ 23.07.2012 WP MP No. 27701 of 2012 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and on a perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the Tahsildar, Bandalaguda Mandal, who passed the order and resorted to demolition, acted contrary to law. In the order passed on 05.07.2012, the Officer clearly mentioned that an appeal against the same lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. However, he gave 24 hours time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. T h e record discloses that in W.P.No.5732 of 1993, way back on 26.07.1996, this Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the petitioner constructed house in the year 1978 after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and permitted the respondents therein to pass an order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act . In his explanation, the petitioner referred to all these facts. Still, the Tahsildar did not refer to them. Demolition was started, before the time for filing the appeal expired.

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 Back to top