Andhra Pradesh Court March 1994 Judgments

Syed HussaIn and ors. Vs. the Joint Secretary, P.W.D. (R and B), Gover ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1994(2)ALT48

S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the verdict of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9834 of 1989. The petitioner in the Writ Petition are the appellants in the writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. Convenience suggests that we refer to the appellants as Petitioners' in this pronouncement of ours.2. The petitioners by preferring the writ petition challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' initiated by notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Before the learned single? Judge who heard the writ petition, three broad contentions were urged as follows:(1) Earlier, the acquisition proceedings taken were dropped and therefore, the present acquisition proceedings is an arbitrary action.(2) There was non-compliance with the mandates of Section 5A of the Act and that vitiated the acquisition proceedings and(3) The declaration unde...

M/S. Banjara Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B. Ranga Chary

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complaint is filed on the ground that, under the agreement sale, the flat No. 1, on the Ground Floor, the opposite party agreed to sell 900 sq. fts. plus ground of 130 sq. ft. open place. But an actual measurements of the flat it came to about 825 sq. fts, and that, therefore, the purchaser of the flat claimed for refund of the amount of Rs. 19,500/-being the price paid by him for the plinth area which was not delivered to the complainant. 2. This was opposed mainly on the ground that they agreed to deliver 900 sq. fts, inclusive of common areas and not the plinth area of the flat as such. The District Forum considered the terms of the agreement and came to the conclusion that, it is not mentioned in the agreement that 900 sq. fts include the common areas. A Commissioner was appointed and also joint inspection was made and on that basis the District Forum came to the conclusion that the extent if the plinth area delivered to the complainant is 82...