Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
MANIKODA YADAIAH RANGA REDDY DIST AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
DIAMOND HILLS WELFARE ASSN AND 39 OTHERS – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the effect of G.O.Ms.No.183 MA & UD Dept dated 24-03-2000 and Section 102(e) on tenancy rights and jurisdiction of Tenancy Act authorities (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes whether protected tenancy rights vest and survive despite subsequent urban development classifications and removals under urban development schemes (!) (!) (!) . - It concludes that vested tenancy rights under the Tenancy Act cannot be retrospectively divested by later notifications absent a proper Section 102(e) notification, and that tenancy protections may continue despite urban reclassification, to be adjudicated under the Tenancy Act framework (!) (!) (!) .
Key Points: - The document addresses whether respondents who purchased lands via registered deeds have locus standi to contest 38-E/38-A certificates, especially when lands are reclassified for residential use (!) (!) (!) . - It notes that third-party purchasers are generally strangers to protected tenancy rights and may need to pursue Civil Court remedies, particularly where the land is no longer governed by the Tenancy Act due to notifications (!) (!) (!) . - It also recognizes that with residential zoning, the Tenancy Act may lose applicability, affecting the proper forum for rights adjudication (!) (!) .
Key Points: - The judgment scrutinizes validity of surrender proceedings under Section 19, including requirements of writing, admission before Tahsildar, and good faith, noting that many surrender records were not properly proven (!) (!) (!) . - It discusses that invalid or non-compliant surrenders cannot bind protected tenants and that tenancy rights may persist unless properly extinguished, affecting 38-E/38-A certificates (!) (!) (!) .
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.5279, 5570, 5631, 5632, 5633, 5634, 5635, 5665, 5666, 5667, 5668, 5680, 5681, 5683, 5686, 5731, 5732, 5858, 6164, 6461, 6479, 6503, 6504 of 2016;
6, 210, 219, 377, 998, 999, 1070, 1071, 1188, 1588, 1882, 1938, 1951, 2046, 2437 and 3160 of 2017 and Writ Petition Nos.3860/2008, 6759/2017 and 11157/2019
COMMON ORDER:
The issues involved in these cases are intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.3860 of 2008 is filed seeking following relief:
“…to issue a Writ or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) to declare the exemption orders issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.Nos.1816, dt.18.10.2005; 2183, dt.27.12.2005 etc., recommended by Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, approved building plans of Vice Chairman, HUDA(CDA), Hyderabad vide Lr.No. 13092/BP/CDA/2006, dt.15.5.2007 and the plan sanction approved for multi storied complex vide proceedings G/353/BP/2611/2007, dt.19.5.2007 of Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Serilingampally, Greater Hyderabad Munic
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
