Andhra Pradesh Court February 2002 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.
Anumolu Jaganmohan Rao Vs. Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam, Kr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD712; 2002(6)ALT293
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The first respondent - Joint Collector in exercise of powers under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') issued the proceedings bearing Rc. No. D2/2734 of 1999 dated 18-10-2000 (by inadvertence in the writ prayer the date of order is mentioned as 18-1-2000). The effect of the impugned order is that the pattadar pass book issued to the petitioner herein exclusively stood cancelled. These proceedings of the Joint Collector which are quasi-judicial in nature are challenged in this writ petition.2. In a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a quasi-judicial order, demonstrable grave error apparent on the face of the record alone is a ground tonullify the order. The second respondent filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act inter alia contending that the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) Agiripalli and the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Pothavarapupadu Village in collusion with the petitioner her...
Nadimandalam Veeraiah Vs. Secretary, Primary Agricultural Co-operative ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD420; 2004(3)ALT532
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The facts relevant for the decision of this writ petition are in a short compass. 2. The petitioner while working as Assistant Secretary, Pulikundaram PACS, the Senior Inspector of Audit, Puttur hasconducted final audit of Pulikundaram PACS of Pitchatoor branch for the years 1992-93; 1993-94 and 1994-95 and submitted a special report alleging misappropriation of funds by the Secretary and the Ex-President of the Society. On receipt of the said report the District Co-operative Officer -R3 authorised the Extention Officer (Rural Development), Pitchatoor to conduct inspection under Section 52 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7/64), who is turn after inspection submitted his report stating that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,12,178.96 ps. and thereby caused loss to the Society -1. By decreasing the cash balance; 2. Amounts collected and not remitted to the Society and 3. Created unnecessary advances, falsification of records ...
State of A.P. Represented by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Sec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)556; 2002CriLJ3810
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal filed by the State and state authorities is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.4.2000 made in W.P. No. 4524 of 2000.2. The respondent herein, viz., Gandham Jaya, filed the writ petition praying for a mandamus directing the appellant-authorities to take into account the parole period in counting the total period of sentence of two years imposed on his wife Smt. G. Manga in Crl. A. No. 580 of 1997 by order dated 15.4.1998. The learned single Judge, by the order under appeal, allowed the writ petition and directed-'Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the above case, I direct the respondents to release the wife of the petitioner i.e., Smt. Gandham Manga, who is the appellant No.1 in Crl. A. No. 580 of 1997 on the file of this Court, forthwith from imprisonment and her bail bonds shall be cancelled setting her free. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.'3. We have heard the learned Addition...
B. Krishna Mandadi and ors. Vs. Power Gride Corporation of India Limit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(5)ALD194
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioners who are ten in number seek a declaration that the action of the respondents in erecting high tension transmission lines (H.T.Lines) in their land at Narigapalle Village, Chittoor District is illegal and contrary to law. They also seek a consequential injunction against the respondents not to lay electric transmission lines on their land. 2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The petitioners allege that they own mango and coconut gardens in various extents of land in Narigapalle village. The mango trees are 20 to 30 years old. When the respondents commenced the work of raising transmission lines, they approached the third respondent whereupon by letter dated 28-4-2001 they were informed that respondents 1 and 2 are constructing transmission towers. Alleging that before taking such action, notice was neither published nor given to the petitioners, they filed the present writ petition. This Court on 20-12-2001, while ordering notice before admission,...
T.M. Manikumar Vs. Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD428; 2002(2)ALT276; (2002)IIILLJ333AP
Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This writ petition raises an important question as to he natures of duties to be performed by an attender working in the Subordinate Courts.2. The petitioner herein was appointed as attender on 13-6-1996 on compassionate grounds in place of his late father T. Prasadarao, Process Server in the District Court, Guntur who retired voluntarily on 31-5-1996 medical invalidation. The petitioner is now working as an attender in on the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.3. The petitioner filed the above writ petition aggrieved by the action of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge in exclusively allotting him daily duty at night at the residence of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge inspite of the ill-health of the wife of the petitioner as an act of victimisation for having refused to work at the residence of the Judge during day time. According to the petitioner, his refusal to work at the residence of the Presiding Officer during day time was based o...
Thirupathi Venkata Rangadasu Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)920; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)474; I(2003)DMC769
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. This is a petition to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 133 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur.2. On a report given by T. Pentamma alleging that the petitioner who is her husband was harassing and subjecting her to cruelty for dowry, police Jangareddygudem P.S. registered a case in Crime No. 136 of 1999 under Section 498-A, I.P.C, and after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for an offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C.3. Contending that Pentamma, the de facto complainant, is not his legally wedded wife, as the charge-sheet itself shows that Bangaramma is his first wife and that she also had filed a similar complaint against him for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 494 and 323, I.P.C. of Lakkavaram P.S., in Crime No. 11 of 1999, petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of his Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 133 of 2000 initiated on the complaint given by Pentamma.4. The conte...
Uppalapati Venkata Gopalakrishna Rao Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD477; 2002(3)ALT10
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. As the issues involved in both these writ petitions are similar, they can be disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, facts are taken from writ petition No. 2250 of 1991.2. The petitioner is a hereditary trustee of Sri Rameswaraswamy temple and Sri Venugopala Swamy temple, Nagula Uppalapalem village. The writ petition was filed to quash the office reference No. G2/15093/90, dated 18-6-1990 and the consequential proceedings in Rc. No. B2/1144/90, dated 23-6-1990 by which the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments appointed Executive Officer.3. The only contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has passed the order appointing an Executive Officer without any prior notice to the person in management. The petitioner being the hereditary trustee is in the management of the two temples and therefore the 1st respondent cannot disturb the management of the petitioner by ap...
Kindle School and anr. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD493; 2002(3)ALT95
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the review petitioners and perused the grounds of review. The grounds which have now been raised in this review have already been raised before the authorities and also in the writ petition. All the authorities have rejected the case of the review petitioners which was also affirmed by the learned single Judge by a well reasoned order. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have also affirmed the order of the learned single Judge and thereby confirmed the orders passed by the authorities below. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Under the guise of filing the review petition, the learned Counsel for the review petitioners is trying to re-open, the whole issue and trying to reagitate the issues which have already been finally decided by the authorities and also by the learned single Judge. The Honourable Supreme Court in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, : AIR1995SC455 which reads: 'It is well sett...
Chanda Bai and ors. Vs. Purushotham Dass and Brothers and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD628; 2002(4)ALT618
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. 1. The landlords in RC No.350 of 1988 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad, filed this revision petition against the order dated 4th August, 1997, in RA No.520 of 1994 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the orders dated 29-7-1994 of the Rent Controller in RC No.350 of 1988. 2. The revision petitioners sought the eviction of the tenants on various grounds, namely, wilful default in payment of rent, bona fide requirement of the landlords for their personal use, subletting by the tenants and using the premises for the purpose others than the purpose for which the suit premises was leased out to the tenants. On appreciation of the material placed by both the parties before the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller was well as the appellant Court did not accept any of the grounds put forward by the landlords for eviction of the tenants. At time of hearing of this revision petition, the revision p...
Vemuri Siva Venkata Koteswara Rao Vs. Jasti Bala Rama Krishna and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD820; 2002(4)ALT610
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 25th September, 2000, in IA No.459 of 1998 in OS No. 162 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda.2. In IA No.399 of 1998 the trial Court appointed under the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC., a Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit lands and a Bode said to be in existence in the suit lands. Commissioner inspected the suit property. She filed her report dated 10-8-1998 in the Court. The said appointment of Commissioner was made on a petition filed by the plaintiff. After the Commissioner filed her report, the defendants, who are the respondents in this revision petition, filed second application in IA No.459 of 1998 to appoint a Commissioner to note the physical features and also to note the existence of other source of irrigation to the plaintiff, etc. The trial Court appointed a Second Commissioner overruling the objections made by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that order dated 25th Septemb...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »