Andhra Pradesh Court April 1997 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.
Pothuru Venkata Rama Raju Vs. Yandra Venkata Narsayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(5)ALT766
ORDERV. Bhaskara Rao, J.1. The order in I.A.No. 729 of 1996 in A.S.No. 34 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, dated 13-11-1996 making an interim stay granted on 15-7-1996 absolute subject to the result of the appeal is assailed in this Revision Petition by the respondents - plaintiffs (sic. petitioner-plaintiff).2. The Revision Petitioner filed O.S.No. 278 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Palakol seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondents -defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of coconut trees in R.S. No. 624 and 625 of Poduru Gram Panchayat on the ground that he had planted the said trees in poramboke puntha having obtained necessary licence from the Gram Panchayat and subsequently he has been granted tree pattas. He asserted that he has been watering and nourishing the said plants and he has been enjoying the usufruct thereof. During the pendency of the suit, temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents - defendant...
State of A.P., Rep. by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Dept. Vs. Valluru V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT417
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. Writ Appeal 791 of 1994 is filed by the respondent/State in the writ petition W.P.19026 of 1988 and Writ Appeal 851 of 1994 is filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 29-3-1994.2. The writ petitioner/appellant will be referred as petitioner and the State will be referred as respondent for the purpose of convenience.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring 24838 square meters in Vijayawada town, Krishna district. He filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). Thereafterwards, the procedure laid down under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act was followed. It was found that the petitioner is holding excess land of Ac.1-44 cents equivalent to 5849 square metres. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 20(1) of the Act seeking exemption stating therein that before the commencement of the Act its...
J.V. Sarma and ors. Vs. Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohib ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD(Cri)285; 1997(3)ALT666
ORDERLingaraja Rath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The challenge to the order passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act is on the plea of that Court having failed to go into the question of the legality and validity of the notification under Section 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Slum Act'). It is to be made clear that though in the body of the writ petition affidavit, the notification under Section 3 (1) of the Slum Act has been stated to be invalid, yet no relief is claimed to declare the notification as bad. The Special Court though held that the petitioners had acquired title in respect of the land in question, yet in view of the notification under the Slum Act of which the respondents are the beneficiaries held that it cannot go into the question as to the validity or otherwise of the notification and hence cannot hold the respondents as land gra...
M/S. Suryamukhi Enterprises, Hyderabad Vs. A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997AP342; 1997(3)ALT465
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. Thepetitioner is a firm and it is running a Lodge by name Hotel Rukmini. The said Lodge has been receiving electrical energy from the 1st respondent-Board (Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board) under two service connect Lons; Fl/l1357 under which electrical energy is being suplied to air conditioners installed in that Lodge and Fl/11358 under which electrical energy is being supplied for other purposes to the said lodge. The petitioner complained to the respondents about the functioning of the meters. After finding that there was no proper response to its letters dated 2-7-1990 and 25-8-1990 requiring the respondents to have the meters tested and replaced, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition on 24-9-1990 seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to replace the meters and reassess the power consumed for the period from January, 1989 till date for service connections No. F 1/11357 and No. F/11358 and to restrai...
Surireddy Pullamma and ors. Vs. Secretary to Govt., Home Dept., Secret ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)ALD96; 1998(4)ALT579; 1998CriLJ3987
ORDER1. The petitioners 6 in number were initially taken into custody as accused in Crime No.43/96, on the file of Cherla Police Station alleging that they have done away with the life of one Vanaparti Venkateswarlu onthe intervening night of 22/23-2-1996 and they were chaged for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. But, subsequently it was found that the case was mistakenly alleged, on the basis of final report filed by the S.D.P.O, dated 16-11-1996, filed this writ petition questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents herein in not conducting an enquiry into the petition dated 31-05-1996 submitted by them against the officials involved in the investigation of the crime and also seeking a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.9.00 lakhs towards the value of the crops that were lost by the petitioner's family due to their unauthorised detention in the jail for over six months.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is also alleged that because ...
Dr. A.L.N. Prasad and ors. Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by Prl. Secretary t ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT516
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Writ Petitioner-appellants have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Facts which are relevant for consideration in the appeal are as follows:The Government of the State has allotted by an order dated 31-1-1964 Ac. 1195.00 of land in Survey No. 403 of Shaikpet Village and Ac. 203.00 in Survey No. 102 of Hakimpet Village totalling Ac. 1398.00 to the Fourth respondent - Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Out of the said extent of land, an extent of Ac. 218.22 gts. was allotted by the State Government to various other societies. On 24-2-1977, a lay-put for 272 plots was sanctioned by the third respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Another lay-out for 329 plots was sanctioned by the Corporation on January 11, 1982. On April 18, 1984, seven lay outs were sanctioned for 1734 plots. Thus in all nine lay o...
Bachala Siva Prasad and anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Rep. by the Executive ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALT554
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The order of the learned District Judge, Ongole in C.M.A. No. 50/94, dated 22-8-1996 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ongole in I.A. No. 2462/92, dated 1-9-1994 is challenged. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 553/86 and the respondent is the defendant. The case was posted for hearing on 19-6-1992 and since the petitioners did not appear in the Court when the case was called it was dismissed by the learned Principal District Munsif on the even date. To set aside that order, the petitioners made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The learned District Munsif while holding that the petitioners never cared to find out the fate of the case from 20-4-1992 to 19-6-1992 and they never even cared to approach the Advocate on the ground that they were busy in arranging the Chief Minister's visit clearly shows that they are interested in prosecuting the case, dismissed the application. The learn...
Rabia Bee @ Khaja Bee Vs. R. Subrahmanyam, Collector, Hyderabad and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD99; 1997(2)ALT818
ORDERC.V.N. Sastri, J.1. This contempt case has come to us on an order of reference dated 5-7-1996 made by our learned Brother Mr. Justice Moiilal B. Naik who felt that the case involves substantial questions of law and it is, therefore, desirable to place it before a Division Bench. The facts leading to the contempt case are as follows :2. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of a premises bearing Municipal No. 5-6-386 admeasuring 230 Sq.yards situatedat Fathesultan Lane (Chcragali Lane of Hyderabad, which was acquired by the respondents along with some other lands for the purpose of allotment to hut-dwellers belonging to S.Cs., B.Cs., and other weaker sections, filed W.P.No.18992 of 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the said premises and pass award after due enquiry. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23-3-1995 directing the respondents to issue fresh notifica...
Vasudeva Sharma Vs. Executive Officer, T.T.D., Tirupati and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD(Cri)292; 1997(3)ALT669; 1997CriLJ3429
1. The question of maintainability of L.P.A. S.R. No. 59802 of 1995, purported to have been filed against the order of the learned single Judge in C.C. No. 86 of 1995 refusing to proceed for contempt against the respondents, has been raised by the Registry. Since specific provision has been made in Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') prescribing for appeals in matters of orders or decisions relating to contempt, the objection is that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would not enable preferring an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge refusing to punish for contempt. 2. Mr. K. V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, while fairly bringing to our notice that the question has been decided against the petitioner by two Division Bench's decision of this Court in S. Sammaiah v. A.P.S.E.B., : 1994(2)ALT729 and T. Vasanatha Lakshmi v. Prl. Apswar School, 1992 (2) An WR 1, yet urges for taking a fresh look at the qu...
islamia Arabic College Rep. by Principal and Correspondent Vs. Balaram ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALT90
C.V.N. Sastri, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the first defendant in the suit is directed against the confirming judgment of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit filed for rectification of the revenue records by incorporating the name of the first plaintiff as protected tenant of the suit land and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any interest in the suit lands or in the compensation payable for the acquisition of any portion of it and for other incidental reliefs.2. The case has had a long and chequered career and this is, perhaps, the fourth round in this Court. Initially the trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeal, it was remanded to the trial Court. After remand, the trial court decreed the suit but again on appeal, it was remanded. Thereafter, the suit was once again, decreed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed on appeal by the learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »