Andhra Pradesh Court July 2001 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.
Marupuru Sundaramma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD16; 2001(4)ALT545
ORDER1. These civil revision petitions were directed against a common order made in LRA No.281 of 1977, 283 of 1977 and 284 of 1977 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore dated 4-5-1998. Here itself it may be stated that as far as the order made in LRA No.282 of 1977 by the same judgment it became final.2. One Dasardarami Reddy, who is the father of the petitioners in CRP No.3783 of 1998 and CRP No.3529 of 1998 and the husband of the petitioner in CRP No.3558 of 1998 was the declarant in CC No.2219 of 1975 and the daughters and son were declarants in CC Nos. 2220, 2221 and 2222 of 1975 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nellore under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lands Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and during the pendency of proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal the said Dasaradarami Reddy died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal preferred a...
Eadi Shankaraiah Vs. State of A.P. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD1
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. WP No.27803 of 1997 is filed by the respondent in LGC No.25 of 1988 before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short 'the Special Court') seeking to set aside the judgment dated 15-9-1997 made by the Special Court in LGC No. 25 of 1988 on various grounds.2. WP No.18345 of 1998 is filed by the respondent in LGC No.25 of 1988 before the Special Court seeking to set aside the judgment dated 4-5-1998 made by the Special Court in LGC No.25 of 1988 on various grounds.3. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner, we briefly state few facts, which are germane for disposal of these two writ petitions.4. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Mandal Revenue Officer,Charminar Mandal, filed a complaint under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') before the Special Court against the writ petitioners herein alleging that the writ petitioner grabbed ...
J. Jaipal Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD453
ORDER1. These four writ petitions involve interconnected issued and are thus considered and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri M Chandrasekhar Reddy and Smt. N. Sobha and learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce for the respondents.3. The petitioners have been granted quarry leases which are subsisting, the details of which are as under:Sl. No.NameWP No.Location and ExtentPeriod of Lease1.Mohd. Ibrahim KhanWP 9959 of 2001343/1 ofAmmenpura (v) Patancheru (M) Medak District 2.000 Hectares17-3-1992 to 14-3-20142.J. JaipalWP 9473 of 2001343/ of Ammenpura (v) Patancheru (M) Medak District 3.00 Hectares12-10-1990 to 11-7-20103.Miraj Osman BaigWP 9974 of 2001343/1 ofAmmenpura (v) Patancheru (M) Medak District 2.00 Hectares12-10-1990 to 11-10-20124.Md. J. JilaniWP 9960 0f 2001327 of Ammenpura(v) Patancheru (M) Medak District 1 .000 Hectares4-11-1993 to 3-11-20084. The quarry leases were granted after grant of certificate of no obj...
M. Srinivasulu and anr. Vs. the State of A.P. Rep., by the Public Pros ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)429; II(2001)DMC658; 2001(3)LS344
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.167 of 1993 dated 05.07.1994 convicting the appellant Nos 1 and 2 herein, under Section 304B and sentencing them for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs1000/- and 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- respectively.2. The case of the prosecution briefly is as follows:The deceased Padma @ Pitchamma married to accused No.1 Sreenivasulu on 21.05.1989. At the time of marriage, PW1-father of the deceased gave Rs.10,000/- in cash, five tolas of gold, other household articles worth Rs.3000/-and Rs.1200/- towards clothes to accused No.1. Accused No.1 was employed as sub-staff of Karnataka Bank, Secunderabad. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1 and she used to visit accused No.1 in the city and did not allow the deceased to fulfil conjugal obligations. At the instigation of accused No.2, accused No.1 has demanded Rs....
C. Prakash Goud Vs. Government of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)ALD34; 2001(5)ALT359
ORDER1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the action of theauthorities in not holding elections to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner accordingly prays for issuance of a consequential direction directing the respondents to take immediate steps for the conduct of elections for the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.2. A quarter century ago, in 1921, Gandhiji made a profound comment on a note sent by the then Government of Bombay regarding the Ahmedabad, Surat and Nadiad Municipalities. The note sent by the Government was not in tune with the rising spirit of the people and had the tendency of interfering with the affairs of the Municipalities. The comment is beautiful and is timeless. It may be first ever and the most understanding statement on decentralisation of power and the role of Municipalities. It is worth to be reproduced:The Government of Bombay note rega...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›