Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.58 seconds)Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923
Mohan Pandey And Another vs Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria And Ors on 19 August, 1992
49. Further, the remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India shall not be available except where
there is infringement of right of the persons by the action of
the statutory authorities and this Court exercising power
under the writ jurisdiction cannot decide the disputed
questions as there is availability of remedy under the general
law. In catena of judgments Supreme Court held that the
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
intended to replace the remedy available to the person
aggrieved by filing a civil suit. (see Mohan Pandey v. Usha
Rani Rajgaria 8 and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v.
State Of A.P vs Hyderabad Potteries P.Ltd.& Anr on 19 April, 2010
27. Learned senior counsel for the respondents in
W.A.No.1639 of 2017 has placed reliance on Hyderabad
Potteries Pvt. Ltd. (11 supra) to contend that entries made in
TSLR cannot be presumed to be true. Assuming for a moment
21 WA.Nos.1639 & 1661 of 2017
that the entries in TSLR are not true, the fact remains that Ac.7-
28 gts. of land is covered by a compound wall.
E. Achuthan Nair vs P. Narayanan Nair And Anr. on 20 August, 1987
14. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of
9 WA.Nos.1639 & 1661 of 2017
A.P. vs. Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and another 1, Palem
Chandra Shekar and others vs. Palem Bikshpathy and
others 2, E. Achuthan Nair vs. P. Narayanan Nair and
another 3, Mohan Pandey and another vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria
(Smt) and others 4 and Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and
others 5 referring to contentions of various parties without
referring to findings of the Court. Therefore, said citations
cannot be of assistance to the writ appellants.
Roshina T vs Abdul Azeez K.T. on 3 December, 2018
14. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of
9 WA.Nos.1639 & 1661 of 2017
A.P. vs. Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and another 1, Palem
Chandra Shekar and others vs. Palem Bikshpathy and
others 2, E. Achuthan Nair vs. P. Narayanan Nair and
another 3, Mohan Pandey and another vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria
(Smt) and others 4 and Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and
others 5 referring to contentions of various parties without
referring to findings of the Court. Therefore, said citations
cannot be of assistance to the writ appellants.
Rajeev Mankotia vs The Secretary To The President Of India & ... on 27 March, 1997
20. Having perused the record, the oral arguments, written
arguments and the citations relied by the respective counsel for
11
2001 (3) ALT 200
15 WA.Nos.1639 & 1661 of 2017
the writ appellants and the respondents in both the writ
appeals, there are certain predominant points to be noted. The
first and foremost is that the subject property consists of
structures surrounded by a compound wall which is declared as
ancient monument. The Gazette notification dated 12.01.1953
shows the subject property as an ancient monument at Serial
No.23. When relief is sought by private parties for land housing
an ancient monument and for demolition of walls surrounding
the monument, the same requires certain amount of caution as
contended by the learned counsel for the writ appellants on the
basis of judgment in Rajeev Mankotia (7 supra), wherein it is
held that the State and Central Governments have a duty to
protect ancient monument. Accordingly, the State and Central
Governments are maintaining the same by constructing a
compound wall around the monuments. The photographs filed
by the writ appellants show that the ancient monument is
indeed well maintained with compound wall and flooring. The
photographs show the distinct structures being old as the
architecture clearly does not belong to present day construction
parlance.
Roma Sonkar vs Madhya Pradesh State Public Service ... on 31 July, 2018
16. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017 referred
to the Telangana Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960 to emphasize that
the sections therein show that the State Government has power
to protect the monuments, declare certain structures as ancient
8
(1992) 4 SCC 61
9
(2003) 6 SCC 230
12 WA.Nos.1639 & 1661 of 2017
monuments, to acquire the monuments and their maintenance,
protection, etc., but does not give any scope for claiming
ownership. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the matter of Roma
Sonkar vs. Mahdya Pradesh State Public Service
Commission and another 10, wherein, it is held as follows:
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited vs Collector, Hyderabad District And ... on 25 April, 2001
19. Learned counsel for respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017
while relying upon the arguments forwarded by the learned
senior counsel for the respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017
argued that the writ appellants have failed to prove their case
before the revenue authorities as well as Civil Courts and
therefore, cannot claim any relief in the present writ appeals. It
is argued that the order of the learned Single Judge is based on
findings of the revenue authorities as well as Civil Courts which
have categorically given findings in favour of the respondents
14 WA.Nos.1639 & 1661 of 2017
declaring them as owners of the land in Sy.No.318/1 on the
basis of entries in pahanies as well as registered sale deeds.
About the genuineness of entries in TSLR, the learned Senior
Counsel relied upon judgment of the High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the matter of Hyderabad
Potteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector, Hyderabad District and
another 11, wherein, it is held as follows: