Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Khaja Naseeruddin And Ors. vs The Commissioner, Survey, Settlement ... on 17 November, 2006 cites

Rev. A. Rampus And Ors. vs Alumuri Subba Reddi And Anr. on 23 November, 1949

Smt. Jayamala Reddy filed L.G.C.No.140 of 1998 claiming part of plot No. 8. The same was also dismissed on 15.02.2005. The third respondent also denies the title of the petitioners to plot No. 8A. It is alleged that the father of the petitioners purchased plot No. 8A in the name of his four minor sons (including the petitioners herein), that later, father sold away the property under registered document No. 2208 of 1358F, dated 12 Amardad 58 Fasli to Syed Mohammad Hashim Saheb for sale consideration of Rs. 1,500 O.S., that the said Syed Mohammad Hashim Saheb sold plot No. 8A to V. Subba Rao, S/o Sreeramulu in 1955, that later V. Satyavathi, W/o Subba Rao applied for layout, got approval from MCH on 20.08.1968 for construction of a room, and that in 1972, Satyavathi got a revised plan approved for plot No. 8A, admeasuring Ac.2.34 guntas. Therefore, the third respondent alleges that petitioners have no title to claim plot No. 8 and with a view to grab a portion of plot No. 8 have sought survey and demarcation of plot No. 8A. It is also alleged that as per Government Memo, dated 06.12.1967 only the original allottees can claim demarcation of survey and the petitioners' GPA who purchased under agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney has been set up to grab 2,045 square meters of eastern portion of plot No. 8 lying to the west of compound wall existing since several decades spreading plot Nos. 8 and 8A. When the second respondent issued notice, dated 25.05.2005, third respondent produced documents on 28.05.2005 within three days, which was acknowledged by the second respondent and in spite of the same, without conducting survey of demarcation of plot No. 8, the Inspector of Survey completed fixing boundaries of plot No. 8A in a mischievous manner ignoring objections of third respondent in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, third respondent filed appeal to the first respondent as indicated in notice dated 28.05.2005 itself issued by Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1