Andhra Pradesh Court December 2006 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.
Dr. G. Shiva Prasad Reddy Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD519; 2007(2)ALT620
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner in the first writ petition filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 20.6.2006 of the second respondent as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction is also sought to the respondents not to refuse the registration of sale transactions. Be it noted, under the impugned order, the second respondent notified the fourth respondent a list of lands which are purportedly assigned lands situated in Nadigattu Village of Bheemunipatnam Mandal of Visakhapatnam District including land in Survey Nos. 27 and 28. The transfer of assigned lands is prohibited under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Prohibition Act'). A similar relief is sought in the other writ petition, and hence this common order.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions have purchased land admeasuring about Acs.7.00 under registered sale deeds and agreements of sale from the previous ...
Bansilal Yadav Vs. Suraj Chand Bhagat and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD302; 2007(2)ALT491
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. All these civil revision petitions filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') arise out of the common judgment dated 1-8-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.272 to 277 of 2005 and 46 to 48 of 2006 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.2. The petitioner in all these revision petitions is one and the same and the respondents are three different tenants viz. Hukmichand Bhagat, tenant in respect of the premises bearing No. 15-8-182; Md Aslam, tenant in respect of the premises bearing No. 15-8-183 and Suraj Chand Bhagat, tenant in respect of the portion of the premises bearing No. 15-8-207 and 208. The old numbers of the said mulgies bearing Nos. 15-8-182 and 15-8-183 also correspond to old Nos. 15-8-207 and 208. The portion of the mulgies occupied by the tenants viz. Hukmichand Bhagat and Md. Aslam, is admeasuring 18' x 19' respectively and the portion occupied by third tenant viz., S...
Md. Abdul Samad Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD722; 2007(4)ALT90; 2008(2)SLJ102(NULL)
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 28-6-2000, whereby the petitioner's request for sanction of compassionate allowance was rejected, the present writ petition is filed.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force. He joined the respondent organization in 1956 and was posted at Lalaguda, Secunderabad. The petitioner would submit that, in due recognition of his services and reckoning his seniority in the grade of Rakshak, he was promoted as a Senior Rakshak and posted at Moula Ali, that he had rendered unblemished service during his career both as a Rakshak and as a Senior Rakshak, that he gave no scope for complaints either regarding his integrity, efficiency or his devotion in the discharge of the duties that were assigned to him from time to time by his superior officers and that he was awarded a cash award, vide proceedings dated 15-7-1962, for the good work done by him in apprehending an ex-convict Mohd. K...
Sujatha Sayarwar Vs. Commissioner, Adilabad Municipality and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD136
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 27-9-2006 and then ordered Rule Nisi on 27-10-2006.2. A counter-affidavit is filed by respondents 2 and 3.3. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel representing the 1st respondent and Sri Satish Deshpandey, learned Counsel representing respondents 2 and 3.4. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No. F1/83/2005, dated 10-3-2006, for mutation of the house property by allotting separate house numbers as 7-7-44/J/I and 7-7-44/J/3, Vidyanagar, Adilabad, in favour of 2nd and 3rd respondents without considering the objections of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Rules framed under the A.P. Municipalities Act and be please...
Datla Rajeswari Vs. Divisional Engineer, O and M 400 Kv Sub Station, A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD369; 2007(2)ALT508
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner herein statedly the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 4.65 comprised in survey Nos. 254/1 of Gollagunta village of Jaggampet Mandal in East Godavari District. She alleges that most of the ryots in the area stopped cultivating paddy fields and raised commercial crops. So as to prevent losses, the petitioner planted 600 teak plants in March, 1999 after purchasing the plants from M/s. Kisan Tissue Culture Private Limited. The teak plants would yield good returns if they are allowed to grow in size. However, the respondent issued a letter, dated 21-07-2006 directing the petitioner to remove the teak plants. It is alleged by the respondents that the teak plants were planted after erection of 400KV transmission lines over her land and that the teak plants are interfering in the facilitation of uninterrupted transmission energy. The said letter/notice is challenged in the writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the Xerox cop...
Gosala Ramadevi and ors. Vs. P. Sivanarayana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD634
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants, who are the wife, parents, grand parents and son of Gosala Ramana (the deceased) who died in a motor vehicle accident filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the Jeep which was being driven by the deceased himself at the time of the accident on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary. First respondent chose to remain ex parte. Second respondent filed its counter inter alia contending that inasmuch as the owner violated the terms of the policy issued by it by permitting 13 people to be carried in the Jeep when its capacity is only '10'. It is not liable to pay compensation and that the appellants have to prove that they are entitled to the compensation claimed. In support of their case, appellants examined the second appellant as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. No evidence either or...
Pesala Anudeep Vs. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD45
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent.2. Pesala Anudeep, being minor represented by his mother Smt. P. Siva Rama Laxmi Kumari, filed the present writ petition praying for setting aside the proceedings in ROC No. 53/2006, dated 8.10.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and direct the 1st respondent to forthwith consider the application for building permission in accordance with the layout and Building Rules and pass such other suitable orders.3. Sri Ramana Rao, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had pointed out to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and would submit that merely because there is some dispute relating to the recovery of money, it cannot be taken as a dispute relating to the title to the property and in view of the same the very rejectio...
City Restaurant, Stores and Bakery Vs. Assistant City Planner and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD635
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The City Restaurant Stores and Bakery represented by its Partner-the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for records and quash the Letter No. 16/8/17/5/21 /TPS/C2/2005/75, dated 21-8-2006 issued by the 1st respondent and connected record relating to award proceedings in A/936/2005 dated 25-1-2006, issued by the 2nd respondent, as the same being illegal, arbitrary against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allot alternative site to the petitioner by extending the benefits of the judgment made in W.P. No. 16705 of 1986 and to pass such other suitable orders.2. The 1st respondent is the Assistant City Planner, Circle-II, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent is the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the 3rd respondent-Sunil Kumar Gupta, who is the owner of the property in question, though duly serve...
Dasari Ganga Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Princ ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALT486
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj.2. This Court ordered Notice before Admission on 15-9-2006. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.3. Sri Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that the Government is not justified in interfering with the unanimous decision taken by the District Level Sand Committee. The learned Counsel also would submit that such exercise of power, in the facts and circumstances, under the guise of Section 264 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 cannot be sustainable. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the subsequent events and would contend that in the light of the same, at least the petitioner can be permitted to operate through manual power and ...
St. Mary's Educational Society and Ors. Vs. Dr. QutubuddIn Ahmed and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP156; 2007(2)ALD412; 2007(3)ALT214
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two second appeals are filed by the Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 610 of 1997, on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The parties to both the second appeals are common. The Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit, for the relief of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, on payment of the value of the suit building, to be ascertained by a Commissioner, that may be appointed by the Court. They also claimed mense profits, at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. feet, per month, from the date of filing the suit, till the date of delivery of possession. Respondents 4 and 5 in the appeals were impleaded as Defendants 4 and 5, in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiffs are the owners of premises bearing Door No. 3-6-137, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, admeasuring 1,612 sq. yards, with an old building, thereon. The 1st defendant is an Educational Society and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »