Andhra Pradesh Court April 2012 Judgments

V. Buchi Rajam and Others Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALT114; 2012(4)ALD442

ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of lands in Kodapur, Kodimial, Cheppiyal and Pudur Villages of Kodimial Mandal, Karimnagar District.  The Special Collector, Land Acquisition, issued a notification dated 22.01.2010 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire the lands.  He invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A thereof.  The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 05.02.2010.  The petitioners challenge the proceedings on several grounds including the one relating to invocation of the urgency clause.  They contend that the alignment of the canal was designed in such a way that it passes through a private land, though a vast extent of Government land is available.  They further submit that the acquisition would result in deprivation of their only source of livelihood. In the counter affidavit filed on behal...

Syed Fathima Begum and Others Vs. Sangamesh Chidri and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants against the award and decree dated 01-11-2002 passed by the IV-Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OP.No. 2310 of 2000. 2. Heard Sri M.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellants-claimants and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2-United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. The appeal against Respondent No.1 was dismissed for default on 28-1-2010. 3. The facts in brief are that the deceased, who was a painter by profession said to be earning Rs.3,000=00 per month received fatal injury in the accident that occurred on 09-10-2000 at about 12:15 p.m., near Ghareeb Nawaz Hotel, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, due to involvement of the lorry bearing No. AIT 6366. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid lorry an...

Dr. Desai Thippa Reddy Vs. B. Naresh Kumar Reddy and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

1. E.A. No. 582 of 2011 is filed by the first respondent/Returning candidate in the election petition to strike out all the averments of paragraphs 6,7,8,9,13,14 and 17 apart from other averments of election petition which are frivolous, scandalous and vexatious. 2. Whereas, E.A. No. 583 of 2011 is filed by the first respondent/Returning candidate to reject the election petition on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action. 3. Virtually the prayers sought for in both the applications are one and the same, though two separate applications have been filed by the first respondent. 4. The question to be determined being one and the same between the election petitioner and the first respondent, they are disposed of by the following common order. 5. I have heard Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants and Sri D.Sudershan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/election petitioner. 6. Challenge to the contents in parag...

Smt. N. Radhamma and Others Vs. the Secretary to Govt. Revenue Departm ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the resumption of the lands of the Petitioners by the 1st and 4th Respondents without granting Ex-gratia/compensation to them, as illegal unlawful and un-constitutional in the circumstances it is further prayed that the Respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to pay the Ex-gratia compensation at the prevailing market rate of Rs.29 lakhs per Acre to the Petitioners together with interest @ 12% per annum till realization of the compensation amount, as they are eligible to the same. WPMP No.40834 of 2011: Petition under Section 151 of CPC Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to pay half of the Ex-gratia as Interim compensation @ present market value ...

Dr. M. Sarveshwar Reddy Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its C ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents. This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents as unconstitutional, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and in utter violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently directing the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure the safety of the petitioner whose life is endangered by the vengeful acts of Respondent No.5 by granting round-the-clock foolproof security or any appropriate protection which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner herein ...

D. Venkata Krishna Rao and Others Vs. Government of A.P., Rep. by Prin ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Common Order: V.V.S. Rao, J. PROLOGUE In this group of seven writ petitions, the issue is whether the notification issued by Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (the Wakf Board, for brevity) declaring certain lands as wakf properties is illegal and whether the allotment of those lands by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) and further allotment by the latter to third party industries is not illegal. Three writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.17192, 20614 and 20372 of 2007 challenge allotment of land and the remaining are filed for invalidation of the Wakf Board notification issued in 2006. The two questions need to be addressed without ignoring the fact that persons interested in the wakf have already filed suits before the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal (the Wakf Tribunal) under the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Wakf Act, for brevity) and are pending for trial. The battle line between the group opposing the wakf board’s decision and th...

Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limi Vs. Mahaboob Alam Khan and Ot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRP Nos.4958of 2007 and Batch 03.04.2012 Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited Mahaboob Alam Khan And others Counsel for the Petitioner:C.R.P.Nos.4958 and 5028 of 2007; and 521 and 1384 of 2011 M/s. Soli J.Sorabjee, Senior Counsel C.R.P.No.5314 of 2007 Advocate General C.R.P.No.1444 of 2011Sri D.Prakash Reddy C.R.P.No.2304 of 2011Sri M.S.Srinivasa Iyengar Counsel for the Respondents :CRP No.4958 of 2007,Respondent Nos.3, 6 to 10 and 17 : Advocate General Respondent No.4: Sri S.R.Mahajir Respondent No.5: Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar Respondent No.11: Sri P.Venugopal Respondent No.12: Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel Respondent No.15: Sri C.Kodanda Ram, Senior Counsel : Citations:1. (2003) 3 SCC 52.: AIR 200.SC 156.2. (2010) 4 SCC 77.3. (1975) 1 All ER 50.(HL) 4. AIR 198.AP 38.5. (1992) 1 SCC 71.6. (1993) 3 SCC 16.7. (1996) 7 SCC 26.8. (2005) 13 SCC 55.9. (1972) 2 SCC 60.= AIR 197.SC 242.10. AIR 192.PC 12.11. ...

D.Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Government of A.P., Rep. by Principal Se

Court: Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6148 of 2007 and Batch 03.04.2012 D.Venkata Krishna Rao Government of A.P., rep. by Principal Secretary,Revenue Department, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: W.P.No.6148 of 2007:Sri B.Adinarayana Rao Counsel for the Respondents :W.P.No.6148 of 2007 : ?Citations:1. AIR 196.SC 144.2. AIR 196.SC 99.3. AIR 197.SC 156.4. AIR 192.PC 12.5. AIR 193.Lahor6. 1978 (2) APLJ 39 7. AIR 198.AP 12.8. (1998) 2 SCC 64.9. (2001) 8 SCC 52.: AIR 200.SC 40.10. (2006) 10 SCC 69.11. (2010) 5 SCC 20.12. (1996) 7 SCC 26.13. (2005) 13 SCC 55.14. AIR 196.SC 108.15. AIR 196.SC 7.16. (1971) 3 SCC 2.: AIR 197.SC 64.17. (1986) 4 SCC 53.: AIR 198.SC 7.18. AIR 199.SC 2.: (1998) 8 SC19. AIR 196.SC 60.20. AIR 195.AP 36.21. AIR 197.SC 89.22. (2010) 4 SCC 77.23. (2010) 8 SCC 11.24. (1985) AC 83.: (1985) 2 All ER 32.: (1985) STC 28.25. (1972) 456 US 20.:1972. L.Ed. 2d 12 (1982) 26. (1983) 459 US 120.:75. L.Ed. 2d 438 (1983) ...

G. Krishna Vs. Smt. K. Amaravathi and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2012(5)ALT81; 2012(4)ALD576

1. This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the judgment in A.S. No.142 of 2008 dated 12-09-2011 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment in O.S. No.252 of 2007 dated 24-07-2008 passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. Appellant herein is the defendant and respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are landlords, are wife and husband and the appellant is their tenant. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 4. O.S. No.252 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, recovery of arrears of rent for 10 months and for future mesne profits at Rs.15,000/- per month from September, 2005 onwards till possession is deliver...

Chennuru Ramakrishna Reddy and Others Vs. Thotakura China Veeramma and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Common Order: These three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a single suit between the same parties. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together. For the purpose of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed in the suit. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Originally, the suit was filed against defendant Nos.1 to 10. Defendant Nos.1 to 9 remained ex parte. Defendant No.10 alone filed its written statement. The plaintiffs filed their rejoinder on 18.10.2005. On contest by defendant No.10, the said suit was decreed by the trial Court on 27.02.2006. Questioning the said judgment and decree, defendant No.10 filed A.S.No.370 of 2006 before this Court which is stated to be pending. Later, defendant Nos.1 to 9 filed I.A.No.437 of 2006 to set aside the order setting them ex...