Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Konkana Ravinder Goud And Ors. vs Bhavanarishi Co-Operative House ... on 5 September, 2003

Vikaruddin Ali Kahn Alias Rasheed ... vs The Ghmc Rep By Its Dy.Commissioner, ... on 31 July, 2024

30. It is already stated supra that respondent No.1-Mandal Revenue officer, Ranga Reddy District while exercising the powers 12 2023 6 ALT 622 13 AIR 1957 SC 529 14 AIR 1964 SC 1419 34 under Section 5(A) of the Act regularized the unregistered agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973, pursuant to the said regularization proceedings, issued 13-B and 13C certificates and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the unofficial respondents especially without issuing notice and opportunity to the affected parties as required under the provisions of ROR Act and Rules made thereunder and respondent No.2 has rightly allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 without properly considering the provisions of the ROR Act and Rules passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Konkana Ravinder Vs. Bhavanarushi Cooperative society (1 supra) and the same is liable to be set aside.
Telangana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amritnagar Colonyii Plot Owners ... vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, on 31 July, 2024

30. It is already stated supra that respondent No.1-Mandal Revenue officer, Ranga Reddy District while exercising the powers 12 2023 6 ALT 622 13 AIR 1957 SC 529 14 AIR 1964 SC 1419 34 under Section 5(A) of the Act regularized the unregistered agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973, pursuant to the said regularization proceedings, issued 13-B and 13C certificates and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the unofficial respondents especially without issuing notice and opportunity to the affected parties as required under the provisions of ROR Act and Rules made thereunder and respondent No.2 has rightly allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 without properly considering the provisions of the ROR Act and Rules passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Konkana Ravinder Vs. Bhavanarushi Cooperative society (1 supra) and the same is liable to be set aside.
Telangana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukhala Kotilingam (Died) By Lrs. vs Joint Collector And Ors. on 20 January, 2005

In the light of the views expressed by the Division Benches referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Order made by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained since the 3rd respondent prayed for appropriate action by invoking Section 5-A of the Act and the said benefit under Section 5-A of the Act is not available in the case of an agreement of sale especially in the light of the view expressed in the decision referred in Konkana Ravinder Goud and Ors. v, Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad case, (supra). Hence, the impugned Order cannot be sustained in the light of the decisions referred to supra and accordingly the same-is hereby quashed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Raju, vs The Mandal Revenue Officer on 31 July, 2024

30. It is already stated supra that respondent No.1-Mandal Revenue officer, Ranga Reddy District while exercising the powers 12 2023 6 ALT 622 13 AIR 1957 SC 529 14 AIR 1964 SC 1419 34 under Section 5(A) of the Act regularized the unregistered agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973, pursuant to the said regularization proceedings, issued 13-B and 13C certificates and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the unofficial respondents especially without issuing notice and opportunity to the affected parties as required under the provisions of ROR Act and Rules made thereunder and respondent No.2 has rightly allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 without properly considering the provisions of the ROR Act and Rules passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Konkana Ravinder Vs. Bhavanarushi Cooperative society (1 supra) and the same is liable to be set aside.
Telangana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikaruddin Ali Khan , Rasheed Nawab Died ... vs Thedy Collector And Tahsildar on 31 July, 2024

30. It is already stated supra that respondent No.1-Mandal Revenue officer, Ranga Reddy District while exercising the powers 12 2023 6 ALT 622 13 AIR 1957 SC 529 14 AIR 1964 SC 1419 34 under Section 5(A) of the Act regularized the unregistered agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973, pursuant to the said regularization proceedings, issued 13-B and 13C certificates and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the unofficial respondents especially without issuing notice and opportunity to the affected parties as required under the provisions of ROR Act and Rules made thereunder and respondent No.2 has rightly allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 without properly considering the provisions of the ROR Act and Rules passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Konkana Ravinder Vs. Bhavanarushi Cooperative society (1 supra) and the same is liable to be set aside.
Telangana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B Ashok Rao vs U Narsimha Reddy Died on 2 August, 2022

13. In this case, the petitioner obtained a validated compromise decree under Section 5-A of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 before the M.R.O. As on the date of approach by the petitioner before the said Authority, the M.R.O. was authorized to validate the same under Section 5-A with a nominal stamp duty and registration charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that 9 PSS,J CRP No.329 of 2019 willfully he opted for wrong Forum. Moreover, respondents herein contested each and every proceeding of the petitioner herein. When the order was passed in favour of the petitioner by the M.R.O., the respondents challenged the same before the R.D.O. and when he confirmed the same, again they challenged it before the Joint Collector and also before the Single Bench. When both Courts confirmed the order, Writ Appeal was filed. As on the date of disposing of the matter by the Division Bench, on 05.09.2003 law was laid down in KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD Vs. BHAVANA RISHI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD and held that under Section 5 of the Act, M.R.O. is not authorised to validate the transfer of the property under an agreement of sale. In pursuance of the said judgment, the Division Bench set aside the orders of the Single Judge and also Revenue Authorities. In view of the order of the M.R.O., pattedar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of petitioner herein and his name was reflected in the pahanies as owner and possessor of the land. Therefore, I find it reasonable to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein to approach the trial Court under E.P. proceedings for execution of the sale deed in his favour. Admittedly, judgment-debtors entered into the compromise with the decree-holder herein and agreed to execute sale deed only to an extent of Ac.12-00 gts., instead of Ac.20-39 gts., and he also agreed for the same by relinquishing his claim on the balance extent. As such, now they cannot go back from their word and they are not supposed to take advantage of the period of limitation. The petitioner herein is entitled for 10 PSS,J CRP No.329 of 2019 exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act as he was prosecuting the litigation before the other Forums diligently throughout the period. He fought for his right from M.R.O. to the Supreme Court by way of filing SLP and later he approached the trial Court with all the reasons and when he was not considered, he filed this C.R.P. and thus, it cannot be said that there are latches on his part. Though in the decree itself it was specifically mentioned that possession was entrusted to the petitioner herein, taking advantage of the orders of the Division Bench, the respondents claimed that he never entrusted for possession and they are still in possession of the said property and relied upon Ex.R1 to R6 and Ex.R10 to prove their possession and enjoyment, whereas the petitioner herein filed Ex.P1 to P11 to substantiate his version. The trial Court has not gone into the issue of possession as the application is filed only for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Telangana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P S Sudha - Full Document

B.Ashok Rao vs U.Narsimha Reddy on 3 August, 2022

9 PSS,J CRP No.350 of 2019 M.R.O. As on the date of approach by the petitioner before the said Authority, the M.R.O. was authorized to validate the same under Section 5-A with a nominal stamp duty and registration charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that willfully he opted for wrong Forum. Moreover, respondents herein contested each and every proceeding of the petitioner herein. When the order was passed in favour of the petitioner by the M.R.O., the respondents challenged the same before the R.D.O. and when he confirmed the same, again they challenged it before the Joint Collector and also before the Single Bench. When both Courts confirmed the order, Writ Appeal was filed. As on the date of disposing of the matter by the Division Bench, on 05.09.2003 law was laid down in KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD Vs. BHAVANA RISHI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD and held that under Section 5 of the Act, M.R.O. is not authorised to validate the transfer of the property under an agreement of sale. In pursuance of the said judgment, the Division Bench set aside the orders of the Single Judge and also Revenue Authorities. In view of the order of the M.R.O., pattedar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of petitioner herein and his name was reflected in the pahanies as owner and possessor of the land. Therefore, I find it reasonable to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein to approach the trial Court under E.P. proceedings for execution of the sale deed in his favour. Admittedly, judgment-debtors entered into the compromise with the decree-holder herein and agreed to execute sale deed only to an extent of Ac.12-00 gts., instead of Ac.20-39 gts., and he also 10 PSS,J CRP No.350 of 2019 agreed for the same by relinquishing his claim on the balance extent. As such, now they cannot go back from their word and they are not supposed to take advantage of the period of limitation. The petitioner herein is entitled for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act as he was prosecuting the litigation before the other Forums diligently throughout the period. He fought for his right from M.R.O. to the Supreme Court by way of filing SLP and later he approached the trial Court with all the reasons and when he was not considered, he filed this C.R.P. and thus, it cannot be said that there are latches on his part. Though in the decree itself it was specifically mentioned that possession was entrusted to the petitioner herein, taking advantage of the orders of the Division Bench, the respondents claimed that he never entrusted for possession and they are still in possession of the said property and relied upon Ex.R1 to R6 and Ex.R10 to prove their possession and enjoyment, whereas the petitioner herein filed Ex.P1 to P11 to substantiate his version. The trial Court has not gone into the issue of possession as the application is filed only for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Telangana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P S Sudha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next