Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(3)ALT362
V. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. Petitioners are operators of Contract Carriages in different districts of the State. The State Government published a draft scheme for nationalisation of contract carriages covering the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. The proposal is to exclude all private operators. Petitioners submit that the draft scheme which was published in the Government Gazette dated 19-8-1989 is illegal and unconstitutional. The reason for so contending is that Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1988 Act) which apply to the publication of draft scheme and its approval in so far as they have conferred powers on the State Government to hear objections to the draft scheme proposed by it and to approve it are void and inoperative as also violative of the principles of natural justice. In the alternative they seek a declaration that Chapter -VI of the 1988 Act has no application to contract carriages.2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
1. In terms of the amended prayer, this writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the notification issued under Section 4(1) of then Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide G.O.Rt.No.284 Irrigation and Power (Projects Wing) dated 06.03.1979 and the subsequent proceedings Rc.No.C/36/79 dated 10.08.2009, including the award proceedings No.B2/1886/09 dated 25.03.2011, issued by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas in Sy.No.597 and Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.598, situated at Hanamkonda Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District within the limits of Warangal Municipal Corporation. The said lands are classified as agricultural lands and as the same are within Warangal urban agglomeration, he, along with his brothers, has filed declarations including the aforesaid lands, under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971AP211
Kondaiah, J.1. As the point involved in these cases is common, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. It is sufficient to state the facts in Writ Appeal No. 599 of 1969: The application filed by the Writ Petitioner Sri Satya Pramoda Teertha Swamulavaru, Head of the Uttaradi Mtt under Section 57 (a) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951) for declaration that Uttaradi Mutt was not a public institution within the meaning of the Act and hence, it was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Endowments Department, was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on December 16, 1965. The appeal preferred against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 61 (1) of that At to the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments on February 23, 1966 was pending before him on the date of the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (XVII of 1966) i.e. on 26-1-1967. The appeal was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002AIHC4073
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. These two appeals involving commonquestions of law and facts arise out of a common judgment passed by a learnedsingle Judge of this Court and they can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The parties herein are referred toas they are arrayed in the suits for the sake of convenience.3. In these two appeals, this Courtis called upon to decide the effect of deletion of Section 47 of the AndhraPradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act No. XXIof 1950) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'. The main issueto be decided in these appeals is whether both the suits (O.S.Nos.1001 of 1978and 1174 of 1981) filed by the plaintiffs are liable to be dismissed as thesuit transaction is hit by Section 47 of the Tenancy Act.FACTUAL BACKGROUND:4. The defendant in both the suits,Mohd. Qutubuddin filed O.S.No.38 of 1963 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate(West), Hyderabad against Syed Basharat Ahmed and his wife Smt. UmmatulBasheera Begum for perman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT317
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. A short but an important question of general importance which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a petition filed by an injured person before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for short 'M. A.C.T.' on 24-11-1990 for compensation in respect of an accident which took place on 16-3-1989 is hit by limitation or it is saved by the subsequent change in law brought about by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 54 of 1994 which was brought into force with effect from 14-11-1994. This precise question arises for consideration and resolution in the back drop of the following facts:It is the case of the appellant Bakka Venkamma that she sustained certain physical injuries on account of an accident occurred on 16-3-1989 involving a motor vehicle owned by the second respondent, driven by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent Insurance Company. The appellant filed original petition for compensation on 24-11-1990. This O.P. purported to have be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD569; 1998(2)ALT766
1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.372 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nizamabad. The respondents were the defendants therein. They litigated over the plaint schedule property, a plot bearing No.51 with an extent of 355.55 square yards situated at Nizamabad, to be referred to as 'the suit plot'. The plaintiffs sought for the relief in the suit for declaration of their title to the suit plot and for possession of the same from defendant No. 1 by evictinghim and for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made by defendant No.1 thereon. The suit was resisted by the., defendants. The parties went to trial on the following issues :1. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the declaration that they are owners of the suit plot, each having half share in it ? 2. Is D1 liable for eviction from the suit plot? 3. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the delivery of possession ? 4. Is Dl liable for mandatory injunction, to demolish the construction made by him in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT726
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In these revision petitions preferred under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 20 of the Act is empowered to condone the delay in filing appeals on sufficient cause being shown by the appellants by invoking Section 5 of the (Indian) Limitation Act, 1963. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (FAC) acting as an appellate authority under the Act, took the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply and he, therefore, summarily rejected the un-numbered appeals by a common order passed in 19 cases. The aggrieved parties most of whom are tenants are questioning the correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority.2. There is no uniformity in the views expressed in various judgments of the A.P. High Court. In some decisions, it was held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971AP118
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, two questions of some importance are raised. The first questions whether as a result of the Supreme Court decision in A. V. S. N. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, : [1970]1SCR115 , striking down Section 3 and Rule 3 made thereunder as unconstitutional, Section 2 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Public Employment Act' survives and consequently the Mulki rules which were repealed by virtue of Section 2 continue to be repealed. Secondly if Section 2 of the Public Employment Act is found not to be surviving after Section 3 has been found to be void, whether Mulki rules ceased to be effective after the formation of the Andhra Pradesh State on 1-11-1956 or thereafter.2. In order to appreciate the implications of these contentions, it is useful to survey the historical background of the Public Employment Act. The Telengana area formerly was a part of the State of Hyderabad. The Hyderaba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD392; 2006(5)ALT772
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the permit No. 475/94 in file No. 35/IP6/94 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the sixth respondent permitting respondents 4 to 6 to construct a multi-storied building complex in premises No. 4-1-1225, King Kothi Road.2. Necessary facts which are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are briefly stated thus: Late A.B.H. Khursheed who is the owner and possessor of the premises bearing No. 4-1-1225 had constructed two separate buildings, one on the south and another on the north facing the main CC road leaving a passage of about 10 feet in-between the two buildings. The second petitioner purchased the southern side of the building, namely, D. No. 4-1-1225/2 in the year 1975 and since then she has been in possession of the said property. Late Khursheed executed a will in favour of his unmarried sister Ms. Khursheed Banu and as per the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP288
ORDERSatyanarayana Raju, J.(1) This matter comes before us on a reference made by the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under S. 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) The point which arises for decision in this reference is whether the Hyderabad Suits Against Government Act (V of 1320 Fasli) Hereinafter referred to as 'the Hyderabad Act' is void by reason of its repugnancy to the Code of Civil Procedure which was extended to the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in April 1951.(3) For a better appreciation of the point in controversy, we may, at the outset, briefly mention the admitted facts.On July 23, 1953, the plaintiff gave notice to the former Government of Hyderabad, under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and on November 23, 1953 instituted the suit against them for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 by way of damages for an alleged breach of the contract entered into by him with the Government. The Government filed their written statement raising various ...
Tag this Judgment!