Andhra Pradesh Court July 2007 Judgments

Anudeep Vs. District Collector (Panchayat Wing) and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(5)ALD189; 2007(5)ALT213

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner purchased a plot of land in Sy. No. 497, Telkapalli Village, Mahaboobnagar District, in the year 2001. Thereafter, he submitted an application on 9.11.2001 to the 3rd respondent-the Gram Panchayat, under Section 127 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), with a request to grant permission to construct a shop in the plot. The permission was neither granted nor rejected by the 3rd respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner got issued a notice dated 19.3.2002 to the 3rd respondent, expressing his intention to proceed with the construction, and accordingly started the same. When the construction was half way through, the 3rd respondent attempted to stop it. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction undertaken by him, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner alleges that by operation of ...

Chinnam Pandurangam S/O. Late Maniah Vs. the Mandal Revenue Officer, S ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2008AP15; 2007(6)ALD248; 2007(6)ALT134; [2008(2)JCR164(AP)]; AIR2007AP15(FB).

ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This petition has been placed before the Larger Bench for considering whether the judgment of the Division Bench in B.G. Laxman (died) per L.Rs. v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District 2003(1) ALT 3 runs contrary to the plain language of Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act') and requires re-consideration.2. Petitioner - Chinnam Pandurangam and respondent No. 3 - Chinnam Narsimlu are real brothers. Their father Manaiah died in 1984 leaving behind several properties including land measuring Ac. 1-14 guntas comprised in Survey No. 346 of Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Even after his death, the name of late Manaiah continued to be shown as pattedar in the Record of Rights. On 24.3.2001, the petitioner made an application to Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (respondent No. l herein) to mutate his own name along with that of re...

Pathuri Bheemeswararao S/O. Venkata Rao Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by Its D ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009ACJ1541; 2008(1)ALD288; 2008(1)ALT31

D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3 only, since respondent No. 2 is not necessary party, as per the cause title in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 29.10.1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), partly allowing the petition M.V.O.P. No. 909 of 1993, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and awarding a sum of Rs. 1,11,152-80 paise, as against the claim of Rs. 2,78,631-60 paise towards 'cost of damages', 'ex-gratia' and 'loss of earnings' for three months, for the bus, belonging to the appellant, in a road accident that occurred on 29.03.1993.3. Appellant is the owner of lorry bearing No. AHF-1519, respondent No. 1 is Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ...

Fishermen Co-operative Society Vs. Arbitrator/Assistant Director of Fi ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(5)ALD450; 2007(6)ALT174

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, a Fishermen Co-operative Society, challenges the order dated 30-3-2005, passed by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Hyderabad, in C.T.A. No. 50 of 1996.2. The petitioner was registered in May 1961 with Nirmal and several other villages, as constituting the area of operation. The 5th respondent is another Fishermen Co-operative Society, in the neighbourhood of the petitioner, and was registered few months later. At the time of its registration, Soan and 21 other villages were included in its area of operation. Disputes arose between the two societies i.e. the petitioner and the 5th respondent, as regards the right to fish in a tank situated in Sangampet Village. Added to this, there exists another uncertainty. While the submergence area of the tank was within the limits of Sangampet Village, the ayacut is, in that of another village.3. A clarification issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and F...

Mohd. Sahabbir HussaIn Khan (Died) Per Lrs. Vs. ZainulabuddIn Khan

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(6)ALD788

P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 20-8-1998 this Court made the following order:2. The questions formulated in ground No. 9(a) and (b) are the substantial questions of law. The said grounds 'a' and 'b' in ground No. 9 read as hereunder:(a) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in declaring Ex.A12 as invalid in law and particularly in the absence of any pleadings or evidence let-in by the defendant during the trial as well as any such contention raised by the defendant before the trial Court?(b) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in declaring the suit as non-maintainable in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had specifically notified the A.P. Wakf Board in Ex.A.18 of 4-4-1985 about the filing of the present suit and in the absence of any objection from the Wakf Board filed the present suit on 19-12-1985?3. Sri Vilas Afzul Purkar, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instan...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chakali Jakkalu and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(1)ALD190

B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Since common question arises in these two appeals and since they also arise out of the same accident, they are being taken up together for disposal. The appellant in these two appeals is the insurance company who seeks to assail the correctness of the judgment and decrees in O.P. Nos. 83 of 2000 and 85 of 2000, dated 6.11.2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Kurnool allowing the claims for compensation under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'M.V. Act') on account of injuries sustained by the claimants in a motor accident.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.12.1998, both the claimants along with their bags of paddy engaged a lorry bearing No.AP-21/U.3940 and loaded the same and boarded the lorry as owners of goods, however, since the said vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the driver lost control and the vehicle went off the road and hit a road...

Mandapati Sambasiva Rao and ors. Vs. T. Srinivasa Rao and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008ACJ1675; 2008(1)ALT511

G. Chandraiah, J.1. Heard both the counsel.Since the issue involved in all these appeals and the accident in question is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All these appeals are filed against the orders dated 16-3-1999 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur in M.V.O.P.Nos. 520, 521, 522, 523 and 524 of 1996 respectively. The claimants are the appellants.3. There is no dispute that on 14-3-1996 at about 12.00 mid night when the deceased in O.P. Nos. 522 and 523 of 1996 and the claimants in other O.Ps. were travelling in the jeep bearing No. ADH 1899 along with others from Babbepalli village in Prakasam District to go to Narsaraopet town, at about 1.45 a.m. on 15-3-1996 when the jeep came near Vinayaka Temple at Kavuru Lingamguntla village, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep in high speed, it dashed the oil tanker which was stationed on the road margin and as a result, the deceased in O.P. Nos. 522 a...

D. Rama Krishna Vs. K. Sree Kumar Reddy (Dr.) and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Incharge President: 1. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants vision in his left eye was not clear and he approached opposite party No. 1 on 29.11.1999 for treatment and opposite party No.1 diagnosed Cataract and advised him to undergo PHACO Emulcification surgery i.e. to remove the Cataract and to arrange the lens. Opposite party No. 1 gave a letter dated 1.12.1999 to opposite party No. 3 to admit the complainant in Sadhuram Eye Hospital on 3.12.1999. The complainant was admitted in the hospital of opposite party No. 3 on 3.12.1999. Opposite party No. 1 without proper evaluation of the case commenced the surgery at about 9.00 a.m. in a hurried manner in opposite party No. 3 hospital by administering local anaesthesia and all of a sudden he stopped surgery and informed the complainant that there is a mechanical defect in the machinery and he will continue the surgery after getting the machine repaired. The complainant submits that opposi...

Dr. V. Ashok Vs. L. Narasinga Rao and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Incharge President: 1. Aggrieved by the order in C.D. No. 2/2003 on the file of District Forum, Vizianagaram, opposite party preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a practising Advocate having regular income of Rs. 8,000. He consulted opposite party on 22.11.2001 for slight temperature and cough. The complainant submitted that the Mantoux report taken indicated negative but the opposite party treated him until 21.1.2002 by prescribing tablets (i) AKT, (ii) Seletus, (iii) Callpolsyxy, (iv) Akululit, (v) Deeocent, (vi) Delitnyllor and (vii) Capsules-zest for treatment of tuberculosis. The complainant submitted that he informed the opposite party that he had no relief and further submitted that he paid Rs. 250 towards fees to the opposte party. 3. The complainant submitted that thereafter he consulted one Dr. Prem Kumar, M.D. Chest Specialist of Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam on 21.1.2002 and the said doct...

Vijendra Kumar and ors. Vs. Commissioner, A.P. Charitable and Religiou ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(5)ALD683

Bilal Nazki, J.1. In this letters patent appeal, the question before this Court is whether the suit temple is a public temple or a private temple. The genesis of this case goes back to an entry made in the book of endowments on 11-11-1342 Fasli, registering the temple as public temple. The law at that time provided that such an entry could be challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, but the appellants herein did not choose to approach the Deputy Commissioner till 1975, when they filed OA No. 66 of 1975. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 28-2-1977, did not agree with the appellants and dismissed the O.A. The law provided for challenging such a finding of Deputy Commissioner by way of a suit. Thereafter, O.S. No. 58 of 1977 was filed which was decreed by the trial Court on 10th of March 1981.2. The case of appellants all along had been that the temple was constructed over a piece of land which was purchased by their ancestors on 18-12-1302 Fasli by Ex.A-42 sale deed, and al...