Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 576 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr on 16 March, 1982

Mahavir Pershad vs Collector And Anr. on 21 September, 2004

21. In the present case there is material; to prima facie - hold that the land, which was purchased by the petitioner and the land in respect of which the Government initiated action under the LE Act are different. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the principle laid down in Government of A.P. v. T.Krishna Rao (supra). In any event as held by this Court, mere long possession by a person in respect of Government land cannot be a ground to compel the Government to file a suit. In a case where a person claims the land belonging to him by reason of a conveyance or long possession and such person approaches the Government or Governmental authority for regularization of occupation offering to pay the market value, a reasonable inference can be drawn that there is no bona fide dispute and resort to provisions of the LE Act cannot be invalidated.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Raidurg Co-Operative House Building ... vs Government Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 March, 2003

47. I have referred to the above three decisions only because Sri Narsing Rao contends that by reason of the impugned order the authorities are visiting the land and threatening to dispossess summarily and that having regard to the ratio of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. v. T. Krishna Rao (supra), the Government has to contest the title in a Civil Court and they cannot resort to summary eviction. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General, the State has an option to avail any of the remedies available under law including the Land Encroachment Act. When the land was surveyed as Government poramboke land and Revenue records show as such, the petitioners cannot allege long standing occupation when pattas given to Chandni Begum and Sonabai are not genuine and incorrect. Merely placing reliance on some communications among various officials, it cannot be said that there is a bonafide and genuine dispute of title. In a given case even if there is evidence of showing the possession of a person, it cannot be said that there is bonafide dispute. Long standing possession is one of the factors and the same cannot be the only factor to compel the Government to go and avail remedy of civil suit. It must be remembered that by a catena of decisions it is well settled that only entries in the Revenue records do not confer any title. Nonetheless, if revenue survey is conducted as required under law and in accordance with the provisions, Sethwar can itself be evidence of title.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Dist.Collector,Hyd And Another vs R.Ramachandra Rao on 9 June, 2025

In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Krishna Rao, the Supreme Court has said: "If there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bonafide claim or title." In this case, the Supreme Court has also indicated that long possession would raise a genuine dispute between the claimant and the Government on the question of title, but also pointed out: "It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. But 28 Dr.GRR,J CCCA No.78 of 2002 duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law." What thus flows from the above, in our considered view, is that primary concern will be to see whether there is a bona fide claim of title and there are reasonable grounds to prima facie hold that the title to the property is in dispute and as such that a primary (sic. summary) procedure for eviction should be avoided. Adverting to the facts of the case, what is seen is, a series of transactions in respect of the property without, however, any dispute as to the property being under the Court of Wards and an agreement for sale, which has taken to the Civil Court for a specific performance and allegedly decreed by the Court against the alleged vendor of the petitioner-respondents. Constructions are said to have come up, but there is no claim on behalf of the petitioner-respondents that they complied with the requirements of the various provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Unauthorised character of the occupation of the land is not displaced by the materials which are brought on the record of the instant proceeding and unauthorised construction is writ large, because provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act are not complied with. Relief, which this Court at such a juncture can grant will be only in the nature of interim injunction leaving the parties to seek their remedy before the appropriate civil Court. Learned single Judge, on the facts as stated above, has chosen to restrain the Government from evicting the petitioner-respondents and /or demolishing constructions by resorting to the summary procedure Under Section 6 of the Act and asked the Government to seek adjudication of title and eviction in the Civil Court. The order, thus, has the effect of making the appellants to resign to the legal acts of the petitioner-respondents of coming up with the constructions upon the land, for which the appellants have a definite and bona fide claim. In our considered view, the best course, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, would be to leave the dispute for adjudication by the Civil Court without there being any such condition of injunction in favour of the petitioner- respondents, as injunction, if any, can always be granted by the Civil Court if the petitioner-respondents establish a prima facie case and show balance of convenience in their favour."
Telangana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next