Rule nisi in writ petition

Possession Injunction Case.

Shivraj Kadlimatti

Siddaiha 1 acre land in sy no 332 gave GPA 3 persons by registered GPA doc no 241of 1987. Mr Balakrishna purchased 200 sq yards through GPA holders in 1988 in 1acre siddaiha land. I have purchased same from Balakrishna in 1994 Mine is 2nd transaction in Nethi siddaiha land. In 2002 Nethi siddaiha 1 acre land and along with 1acre land of jayprada, which just below Nethi siddaiha land, clubbed together and relayout is made and sold to 3 buyers in 40,20 and 20 guntas, totally 2 acres. Note:Nethi siddaiha and GPA holders sold 1acre land under same registered GPA doc no 241of 1987,in 1988 to Mr Balakrishna in sq yard and again in 2002 to 3 persons in guntas. Hence, my plot purchased from Balakrishna can't be traceable on ground, it's vanished in relayout, some one on possession since 2002, it's more than 12 year's, what case is to recover plot...

Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/case-is-possession-injunction-228457.asp#reply

Based on the information provided, it appears that there has been a re-layout of the land in question in 2002, and your plot purchased from Balakrishna is no longer traceable on the ground. Additionally, it has been more than 12 years since the re-layout took place, and someone else is currently in possession of the plot.

In this case, it may be difficult to recover the plot through legal means, as it has been a long time since the re-layout and the person currently in possession may have acquired the plot through adverse possession. However, you could consult a lawyer to explore your legal options and determine if any legal action can be taken.

One potential course of action could be to file for an injunction to prevent the current possessor from using or selling the land. However, the success of such a lawsuit would depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the applicable laws and regulations in your jurisdiction.

Shivraj Kadlimatti

Siddaiha 1 acre land in sy no 332 gave GPA 3 persons by registered GPA doc no 241of 1987. Mr Balakrishna purchased 200 sq yards through GPA holders in 1988 in 1acre siddaiha land. I have purchased same from Balakrishna in 1994 Mine is 2nd transaction in Nethi siddaiha land. In 2002 Nethi siddaiha 1 acre land and along with 1acre land of jayprada, which just below Nethi siddaiha land, clubbed together and relayout is made and sold to 3 buyers in 40,20 and 20 guntas, totally 2 acres. Note:Nethi siddaiha and GPA holders sold 1acre land under same registered GPA doc no 241of 1987,in 1988 to Mr Balakrishna in sq yard and again in 2002 to 3 persons in guntas. Hence, my plot purchased from Balakrishna can't be traceable on ground, it's vanished in relayout, some one on possession since 2002, it's more than 12 year's, what case is to recover plot... I want answer without plagiarism 

Based on the information provided, it seems that you purchased a plot of land from Mr. Balakrishna in 1994, which was part of a larger piece of land owned by Siddaiha. However, in 2002, the land was clubbed together with another piece of land owned by Jayprada, and a re-layout was made. As a result, your plot of land is no longer traceable on the ground, and someone else has been in possession of the land since 2002.

In this situation, it may be difficult to recover your plot of land through legal means. Since it has been more than 12 years since the re-layout was made, the person currently in possession of the land may have acquired it through adverse possession. However, you could consult a lawyer to explore your legal options and determine if any legal action can be taken.

One possible course of action could be to file for an injunction to prevent the current possessor from using or selling the land. However, the success of such a lawsuit would depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the applicable laws and regulations in your jurisdiction.

2 / 2

Shivraj Kadlimatti

I have filed Writ petition on Nov 2022 and obtained order as "Admit Issue Rule Nisi Call for records in eight weeks." After 16 weeks from the above order, still no 

If it has been more than 16 weeks since you obtained the order to admit the issue and call for records in your writ petition, and you have not received any response, you may need to take further action.

1. One option would be to follow up with the court or the concerned authorities to inquire about the status of your case. You could reach out to the court clerk or your lawyer to find out if there have been any updates or if there are any issues causing the delay.

If you still do not receive a response or if you believe there has been a significant delay, you could consider filing a motion for early hearing or requesting an expedited hearing. This would require you to submit a written request to the court explaining the reasons for your urgency and requesting that your case be heard as soon as possible.

Alternatively, you could consider reaching out to a lawyer or legal advisor for assistance in pursuing your case and ensuring that it receives timely attention from the court.

If the court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for granting the relief sought in the writ petition, rule nisi is issued calling upon the person or persons against whom the relief is sought to show cause why such relief should not be granted.

Though the high court has posted the matter to be heard after eight week's notice, you may have to wait for the case to be listed again hence you follow it up through your advocate and also follow up the daily cause list to know about the next date of listing.

Very well advised by learned expert Sh. T Kalaiselvan, I fully agree.

As per Black's Law Dictionary, VIth Edition :

"Rule Nisi A Rule which will become imperative and final unless cause be shown against it.

This Rule commands the party to show cause why he should not be compelled to do the act required or why the object of the Rule should not be enforced.

In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 1997 Edition which has been revised and enlarged by former Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice Y. V. Chandrachud and other jurists defines Rule Nisi and Rule Absolute as under :

"Rule Nisi i.e. calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the rule applied for should not be granted. If no sufficient cause is shown, the rule is made absolute; otherwise it is discharged".

If the above definitions of Rule Nisi are taken into consideration, then it would be quite clear that when the court issues a Rule Nisi, the Court issues certain directions in the said Rule Nisi and calls upon the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be compelled to comply with the said directions.

Such directions by way of issuing Rule Nisi are generally issued by this Court or the Apex Court in the writ petition seeking writ of Habeas Corpus. In all other writ petitions or proceedings generally, the word used is only "Rule" and then as per the final out come of the proceedings, the Rule is either made absolute or discharged. As a matter of fact neither the Rules of this Court nor any other law making a specific provision for issue of Notice. When the petition is filed before the Court seeking any writ other than the writ of Habeas Corpus and when the Court has not summarily dismissed the petition, issuing of notice by the Court without the further addition to the words 'Notice' viz. as to why the ad-interim relief sought for should not be granted or as to why the petition should not be admitted and allowed, will have to be treated as a Rule.

The Notice in that case, would amount to issue of Rule when the Court is not in a position to summarily dismiss the petition. But as the Court had not initially used the word "Rule" and had used the word "Notice" while finally dictating the judgment at the commencement of the judgment, the Court begins the judgment with the word "Rule" and then as per the final conclusion either makes the Rule absolute or discharged.