Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing D.Venkata Krishna Rao vs Government Of A.P., Rep. By Principal ... on 3 April, 2012

Kotagiri Ganga Prasad vs The State Of Ap., Rep By Its P.P on 11 January, 2024

In R. Krishna v. Govt. of A.P. 5, learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court relying on a Division Bench judgment in Public Prosecutor (AP) v. Mohan Rao 6 and also Division Bench Judgment of A.P. High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Komalla Krishnaiah 7, Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar 8, Jayendra1 and Bhoop Ram4 held in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 considered the scope of Sections - 8 and 10 of the Act and the same are extracted below:
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Bajranglal Agarwal vs The State Of Telangana, on 7 January, 2025

18. In the above said judgments specifically held that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to maintainability of the writ petitions, when action complained of is in violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction. The principle laid down in the above said judgments are applicable to the case on hand on the ground that respondent No.2 had passed impugned order without giving opportunity to the appellant to submit explanation and documents to the notice dated 19.09.2024 and it amounts to violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned eviction order dated 20.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside on the ground of violative of principles of natural justice and the matter is remitted back to the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Hyderabad District. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Collector to entertain the proceeding as it is open for the purpose of adjudicating the same in the proceeding before the District Collector. Needless to state that the District Collector shall adjudicate the issue with regard to the 17 jurisdiction without being influenced by any finding contained in the order dated 08.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.7207 of 2024.
Telangana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bajranglal Agarwal vs The State Of Telangana on 7 January, 2025

18. In the above said judgments specifically held that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to maintainability of the writ petitions, when action complained of is in violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction. The principle laid down in the above said judgments are applicable to the case on hand on the ground that respondent No.2 had passed impugned order without giving opportunity to the appellant to submit explanation and documents to the notice dated 19.09.2024 and it amounts to violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned eviction order dated 20.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside on the ground of violative of principles of natural justice and the matter is remitted back to the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Hyderabad District. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Collector to entertain the proceeding as it is open for the purpose of adjudicating the same in the proceeding before the District Collector. Needless to state that the District Collector shall adjudicate the issue with regard to the 17 jurisdiction without being influenced by any finding contained in the order dated 08.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.7207 of 2024.
Telangana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Devender Reddy, vs Prl.Secy., Minorties Welfare Dept., ... on 19 November, 2024

4. The sum and substance of the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board is that the subject lands to an extent of Ac.14- 15 guntas of Survey No.438 of Bhongir Village is a wakf properties attached to Jama-e-Masjid, Bhongir and KhateebInam i.e., MashruthulKhidmat (Service Inam land for Khitabat) in the survey conducted in 1960s by the commissioner of Wakfappointedby the Government, by duly following the procedure as contemplated under the Act, in the presentce of Muttawalli of the Wakf institution. It is contended that the subject property has always been a Wakf property, and the Hon' ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments have held that "once a wakf, always a wakf", and that a Muttawalli is only a caretaker of the property to look after the property and to put it to use for the intended purpose and any alienations whatsoever in respect of wakf property would never change the character of wakf property and cannot sustain in the eye of law. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the revenue 4 wp_11541_2018 NBK, J authorities have consistently shown the property as Wakf property in the revenue records and the Gazette Notification has also been published. It is also contended that in the a Supplemental Notification was published in A.P. Gazette as Supplement to Para-II No.9A dated 01.03.1990 notifying the lands bearing Survey Nos.424, 425, 8, 11, 2, 34, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 435, 436, 437, 438 total admeasuring Ac.118-35 guntas consisting of an extentof Ac.86-02 guntas as Dry and c.32-33 guntas as Wet situated at Bhongir village, and in all the basic Revenue and Survey Records, the said lands were recorded as Service Inam but the Revenue authorities have erroneously issued ORCs in the name of third parties in respect of certain Wakf lands including the subject lands in Survey No.438. It is further contended that the 1st respondent has issued directions to the authorities to cancel any ORCs granted in respect of Wakf properties and the subject land is a wakf property and therefore the authorities cancelled the ORC in respect of the same, and therefore there is no illegality in denying issuance of No Objection Certificate or deletion of the subject property from Wakf properties list or the publication of Gazette Notification, and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court in the matters related to Wakf lands; D. Venkata Krishna Rao v. Government of A.P 1; Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad 2; K.G. Krishna Murthy v. Joint Collector, R.R. District 3;
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - N Bheemapaka - Full Document
1