Disposed

Mr.Sailalith, Hyd and Another v. Secy. I and Cad Dept. Hyd and 4 Others

Telangana HC11 Feb 2020WP/27669/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed pending writ petition seeking declaration of illegal interference with peaceful possession of land. Court directed respondents not to dispossess petitioner without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to dispossess petitioners from property in Sy.Nos.203 and 204 without following due process of law.

Mr.Sailalith, Hyd and Another Vs Secy. I and Cad Dept… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.27669 of 2008

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶4

“ … to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the petitioners fundamental and constitutional rights with regard to their peaceful possession and compound wall constructed in Sy.No.203 & 204 admeasuring Ac.8-28 Gts. situated at Narsinghi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without issuing any notice and without following due the process of law as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ rights and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that this

¶6

Court was pleased to grant status quo order at the time of admission on 18.12.2008 and by virtue of the said interim order, the petitioners are in possession of the property.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the respondents would not dispossess the petitioners, without following due process of law.

¶8

In view of the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the property in Sy.Nos.203 and 204 admeasuring Ac.8.28 gutnas situated at Narsinghi Village, Rajendrangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrcit, without following due process of law.

¶9

¶10

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No

¶11

order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶14

11^th February 2020

¶15

mar

Mr.Sailalith, Hyd and Another v. Secy. I and Cad Dept. Hyd and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Sailalith, Hyd and Another v. Secy. I and Cad Dept. Hyd and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sudershan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Madhucon-Sino Hydro, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Janab Syed Mahmood Quadri Vs The State of Telangana

Vazir Ahmed Khan, Hyd. Vs Chairman-Cum-M.D. A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Hyd and 3 Others

Sri Komireddy Ramchandram Vs Union Of India

Venkata Rao Inaganti Vs The Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Another