KACHRULAL TULSIRAM Vs. VITHAL PURBHAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioners, who claim to be the land owners, have challenged the declaration made in favour of Respondent no. 1 as owner under Section 38-G of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act.

(2.) BEFORE this petition, there were several remands at various stages. It is not necessary to refer to all these remand orders, as I am going to add one more remand order by this judgment.

(3.) THE whole crux of the matter is that the tenancy of Respondent no. 1 is not disputed The petitioners challenged that the declaration of ownership under Section 38-G is made without notice to them after attaining the status of ownership in the suit land. The other contention of the petitioners is that their appeal at some stage challenging the declaration has been held to be time-barred, while, at other stage, it was held to be within time. Not only that, the main grievance is that, now it has been held that they have no locus standi to challenge the declaration under section 38-G made in favour of Respondent No 1.