citedby: 338985

Y. Anthi Reddy vs Shaik Gulam Hussain on 10 June, 2025

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:

Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Y. Anthi Reddy vs Shaik Gulam Hussain And Jahangeer Died ... on 10 June, 2025

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:

Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Y. Anthi Reddy vs Shaik Gulam Hussain And 14 Others on 10 June, 2025

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:

Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Sri Y Pratap Reddy vs Shaik Gulam Hussain And Shaik Janagir ... on 10 June, 2025

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:

Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Sri Y Pratap Reddy vs Shaik Gulam Hussain And Other on 10 June, 2025

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:

Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Sri Y Pratap Reddy vs Shaik Gulam Hussain And 23 Others on 10 June, 2025

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:

Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Y. Anthi Reddy vs Shaik Gulam Hussain Died Per L.Rs., ... on 10 June, 2025

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:

Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Sri Y Pratap Reddy vs Shaik Gulam Hussaian And Jahangir Died ... on 10 June, 2025

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:

Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results