Andhra Pradesh Court March 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tarunam Gurappa Vs. Naidu Ramana Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT115
P.L. Narasimha Sarma, J.1. Defendant is the petitioner in this revision. The revision is filed questioning the order of the Principal District Munsif, Srikalahasti, in O.S.No. 406 of 1984, in and by the terms of which it was held that Ex.A-1, dated 2-10-1978, is only an agreement to sell and not a sale-deed. The relevant facts are as follows: Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2-10-1978, which was marked as Ex.A-1. The defendant raised the objection that the document, Ex.A-1, is not an agreement of sale, but it is an out-right sale-deed in and by the terms of which the property was conveyed and that therefore the said document is inadmissible in evidence. The learned trial Judge held that the document is only an agreement of sale and not a sale-deed and therefore it is admissible in evidence. Questioning the said order this revision is filed by the defendant.2. Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-def...
Public Vigilance by Bharadwaja Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT725
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.As the reliefs sought in these two writ petitions are identical we are inclined to dispose of the same by this common judgment.1. The petitioners in Writ Petition 338/91 is an organisation styled as 'Public Vigilance' represented by one Y.Bharadwaj, its Joint Secretary. The Organisation claims to be interested in protecting rights and privileges of citizens. The petitioner in Writ Petition 1638/91 is Sri K. Ananta Rao, an advocate practising in this High Court.2. An extent of 42 acres and 25 guntas of site at Malakpet, Hyderabad city, commonly known as 'Mahboob Mansion' was acquired by the State Government for the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board for the purpose of construction of housing-cum-market complex, and the site was handed-over to the Housing Board on 21st January 1980. Proceedings were initiated for acquisition in May, 1972 for implementation of the housing scheme. The Housing Board negotiated with the owners of the Mahboob Mansion who were members of die royal f...
Tirunam Gurappa Vs. Naidu Ramana Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ALT628
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. Defendant is the petitioner in this revision. The revision is filed questioning the order of the Principal District Munsif, Srikalahasti, in O.S. No. 406 of 1988, in and by the terms of which it was held that Ex.A-1, dated 2-10-1978, is only an agreement to sell and not a sale-deed. The relevant facts are as follows.2. Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2-10-1978, which was marked as Ex.A-1. The defendant raised the objection that the document, Ex.A-1, is not an agreement of sale, but it is an out-right sale-deed in and by the terms of which the property was conveyed and that therefore the said document is inadmissible in evidence. The learned trial Judge held that the document is only an agreement of sale and not a sale-deed and therefore it is admissible in evidence. Questioning the said order this revision is filed by the defendant.3. Sri P.S.Narayana, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-defe...
Gurudev Siddha Peeth Vs. the Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT68
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This is a writ petition complaining of gross inaction of the third respondent herein in releasing the document No. P-172/1988 which is a Deed of Exchange and presented for registration and which was referred under Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act as amended by the Act of Andhra Pradesh.2. It is stated by Mr. P. Sriraghu Ram, the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the adjudication being made by the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad in his proceedings No. G1/MV/1884 dated 27-3-1991 and inspite of the fact that the said order has become final the above document which was kept as pending registration, is not being released by the third respondent herein and that there is absolutely no reason or justification in withholding the said document.3. When I posed a question to Mr. Sriraghuram as to whether the said order dated 27-3-1991 passed by the District Revenue Officer had become final, he emphatically says that as per the instructions from the peti...
Shaik Habeeb Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2246
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. This petition was filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus, by the father of the detenu, who is a retired Head Constable from the State Special Police establishment, stating that his son Shaik Raoof was detained under orders in SB (1) No. 8/DGA/87/91 dt. 27-9-1991 which was issued under section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act'. The 1st respondent, State Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 4696 General Administration (General-A) Department, dt. 8-10-1991 approving the detention by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, by order dt. 27-9-1991. By a further G.O. Rt. No. 5131 General Administration (Genl. A) Department, dt. 11-11-1991, the 1st respondent directed continuance of the detention for a period of 12 months from 28-9-91. Petitioner challenges the above three orders. 2....
Syed JalaluddIn Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3920
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. Petitioner is the father of Syed Ghousuddin who was detained in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, pursuant to an order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in order SB(1) No. 7/S7/COA/91 dt. 27-9-91. The initial period of detention was four weeks from 28-9-91. The order was passed under S. 3(3) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Communal Offenders Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The order as approved by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No. 4716 G.A.D. dt. 9-10-91 and under S. 12(1) of the Act. In G.O. No. 4921 dt. 23-10-1991 the same was confirmed by the Government, continuing the detention for a period of four weeks from 28-9-1991. In G.O. 4942 dt. 24-10-1991, the 1st respondent directed that the detention of the petitioner should be continued for the maximum period of six months from the date of detention. Petitioner had in the meantime, submitted a representation against the detention order to the Advisory Board. It was...
Smt. S. Vanaja Vs. the Secretary, State Transport Authority and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1992AP333
ORDERM.N. Rao, J. 1. All these writ petitions relate to the power of the State Transport Authority (for short STA) to alter the conditions of a permit granted by it under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (since repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). The permits involved are all inter-State stage carriage permits; some were granted by the Andhra Pradesh STA and some by the STAs of other States Tamilnadu, Orissa and Karnataka in respect of which counter-signatures of the Andhra Pradesh STA are required.2. A Division Bench of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S.T.A. Tribunal 1987 (2) ALT 900 at 903 expressed the view that the STA has no power to vary the conditions of a stage carnage permit granted by it. The reasoning of the Division Bench was that:'The power to vary the conditions pf the permit is located in S. 48 only and having authorised Regional Transport Authority to vary permit the omission to refer to State Transport Authority is deliberate and furnishes a clue to the exclusion of St...
K. Pamanna Vs. the State Transport and Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyder ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1992AP368; 1992(2)ALT385
ORDERM. N. Rao, J.1. All these writ petitions relate to the power of the State Transport Authority (for short STA) to alter the conditions of a permit granted by it under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (since repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). The permits involved are all inter-State stage carriage permits; some were granted by the Andhra Pradesh STA and some by the STAs of other States -- Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Karnataka -- in respect of which counter-signatures of the Andhra Pradesh STA are required.2. A Division Bench of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S.T.A. Tribunal, 1987 (2) ALT 900 at 903, expressed the view that the STA has no power to vary the conditions of a stage carnage permit granted by it. The reasoning of the Division Bench was that :'The power to vary the conditions of the permit it located in Section 48 only and having authorised Regional Transport Authority to vary permit the omission to refer to State Transport Authority is deliberate and furnishes a clue to the ...
P. Rama Murthy Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)ALT513
ORDERS.C. Pratap, C.J.1. The petitioner's application for variation of the route under this permit was rejected by the State Transport Authority. Appeal therefrom to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal suffered the same fate. Hence this petition.2. Going through the order of the State Transport Authority as also that of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, we find no justification for taking of the matter a view different from the one concurrently taken by these two authorities. Decisions on the questions and contentions raised by the writ petitioner in support of his application for variation are all findings of fact. Facts and' circumstances relevant thereto have been in detail considered by the authorities below and for their own good and sound reasons, the application for variation was rejected. Save under exceptional circumstances which is not the case here, it is not open to a writ Court to re-appreciate evidence, go into questions of fact and come to its independent findin...
N. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ALT240
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent-Co-operative Sugar Factory to purchase the quantity of 375 tonnes of sugar-cane. The prayer is rather peculiar as normally one comes across the acts of evasion by the sugar-cane growers to sell to the sugar factory as elsewhere they may get good prices. But here is a case where the petitioner wants to thrust purchase on the third respondent for his own reasons. The reason advanced by the petitioner is that, but for the letter dated 9-8-1989 permitting the petitioner to raise sugar-cane on an additional area of Act 8-50 cents he would not have raised that sugar-cane on that area. The petitioner's complaint is that before raising the sugar-cane on additional extent of land, he had made an application on 25-5-1989 and the respondent considered the same and issued a confirmatory letter 4 dead 21-6-1989 permitting the petitioner to raise sugar-cane on an additional larea of Act...