Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC471; 1992(1)SCALE522; 1995Supp(1)SCC245
ORDERM.H. Kania, CJI, T.K. Thommen and P.B. Sawant, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1472 of 1976. The Revision Petition was filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms [Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings] Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act']. The appellant filed the declaration under Section 8(1) of the Act showing a holding of 119 acres and 82 cents of land. His wife filed a separate declaration. Both the declarations were clubbed together and the appellant and his wife were treated as one family unit within the meaning of Section 3(f) of the Act. After the various steps contemplated under the Act, a view was taken that the appellant was holding land in excess of the ceiling area and the same was liable to be taken over by the State. The dispute relates to certain alienations of land made by the appellant which have been ignored in calcu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT17
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this revision. This revision is filed questioning the order of the IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dt.1-7-1991 dismissing I.A.No. 525 of 1991 in O.S.No. 1426 of 1987 filed for delivery of possession of the suit schedule premises.2. For convenience sake, the parties to this revision are referred as landlords and tenant.3. Landlords are the petitioners. They filed the suit O.S.No. 1426 of 1987 on the file of IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of suit schedule building after terminating the tenancy. The respondent-tenant took the premises on lease from the landlords to run a hotel. The amount payable to the premises per month was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.6,000/- towards accommodation and Rs. 4,000/- towards fixtures and fittings). Landlords also sought a decree for arrears of rent as well as future rents etc., in the said suit.4. Pending suit, landlords filed LA. No. 1077 of 1988 for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD503; 2001(2)ALT442
ORDERS.B. Sinha, CJ1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 23-7-1999passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.883 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent No.3 herein questioning the seniority of the petitioner was allowed.2. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to consider the fact of the matter.3. The petitioner as also the unofficial respondent were appointed as Lower Division Clerks. They were promoted as Upper Division Clerks. The rule governing the said promotion provides for filling up of 50% of the vacancies on the basis of the competitive examination limited to the Lower Division Clerks and the rest on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.4. The petitioner herein opted for the first mode of promotion and was regularly promoted as Senior Division Clerk on 24-8-1976. The unofficial respondent was however promoted on the basis of seniority on the same date viz., 24-8-1976. The petitioner was placed at s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ALT593
ORDERGopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in forcing the petitioners to surrender the lands as illegal and arbitrary and consequently declare the impugned Memo No. 2013/UCII/84-6 dated 20.10.1998 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, without jurisdiction and also to declare that the lands held by late Zaidunissa Begum are exempt from Chapter III of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in view of G.O.Ms. No. 733 dated 31.10.1988. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of 1953.55 square yards of land situated in Sy. No. 503/B of Attapur village, Hyderbad, under registered sale deeds dated 27.01.1989 and 24.01.1990 from respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (grand-daughters of late Zaidunnissa Begum). Other petitioners have also purchased lands from respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under different registered sale deeds. It is stated that originally late Zaidunissa Begum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
KERLIN'S LESSEE v. BULL - 1 U.S. 175 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court KERLIN'S LESSEE v. BULL, 1 U.S. 175 (1786) 1 U.S. 175 (Dall.) Kerlin's Lessee v. Bull et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1786 This cause now came before the court on a special verdict, returned upon the trial of an ejectment for a messuage and lands in the township of East-Whiteland, in the county of Chester. It was ably argued on the 27th of April, by Sergeant and Bradford for the defendants and Lewis and Wilcocks for the plaintiff; Page 1 U.S. 175, 176 and, the COURT having taken time to consider of their judgment, it was this day pronounced by the CHIEF JUSTICE. M'KEAN, C.J. This cause was tried at Nisi Prius in Chester, when the Jury found a special verdict, which contains the following statement: That a certain John Hunter, being seized in fee of the premisses in question, on the 30th of July 1751, made his last will and testament in writing, duly executed, and, among other things, devise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
ROSS v. RITTENHOUSE - 2 U.S. 160 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court ROSS v. RITTENHOUSE, 2 U.S. 160 (1792) 2 U.S. 160 (Dall.) Ross et al. Executors v. Rittenhouse Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1792 In this cause a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on a case stated. After argument, the Judges recapitulated the facts and arguments of counsel, and delivered their opinions seriatim in the following terms: M'Kean, Chief Justice: This case is, in brief, as follows: The British sloop Active had been captured as prize on the high seas, in September, 1778, and was brought into the port of Philadelphia, where she was libelled in the Court of Admiralty of the State, held before George Ross, Esq. the then Judge, on the 18th day of the same month. The four persons, for whose use this action is brought, claimed the whole vessel and cargo, as their exclusive prize; but Thomas Huston, master of the brig Convention, a vessel of war belonging to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Fletcher v. Peck - 10 U.S. 87 (1810) U.S. Supreme Court Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 6 Cranch 87 87 (1810) Fletcher v. Peck 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus If the breach of covenant assigned be that the State had no authority to sell and dispose of the land, it is not a good plea in bar to say that the Governor was legally empowered to sell and convey the premises, although the facts stated in the plea as inducement are sufficient to justify a direct negative of the breach assigned. It is not necessary that a breach of covenant be assigned in the very words of the covenant. It is sufficient if it show a substantial breach. The Court will not declare a law to be unconstitutional unless the opposition between the Constitution and the law be clear and plain. The Legislature of Georgia, in 1795, had the power of disposing of the unappropriated lands within its own limits. In a contest between two individuals claiming und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Daly's Lessee v. James - 21 U.S. 495 (1823) U.S. Supreme Court Daly's Lessee v. James, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat. 495 495 (1823) Daly's Lessee v. James 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 495 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus J.B. devises all his real estate to the testator's son, J.B. Jr., and his heirs lawfully begotten, and, in case of his death without such issue he orders A.Y., his executors and administrators, to sell the real estate within two years after the son's death, and he bequeaths the proceeds thereof to his brothers and sisters by name and their heirs forever, or such of them as shall be living at the death of the son, to be divided between them in: equal proportions, share, and share alike. All the brothers and sisters die, leaving issue. Then A.Y. dies, and afterwards J.B. Jr., the son, dies without issue. Heirs is a word of limitation, and none of the testator's brothers and sisters being alive at the death of J.B. Jr., the devise to them failed to take effect. Quae...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Thompson v. Tolmie - 27 U.S. 157 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v. Tolmie, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 157 157 (1829) Thompson v. Tolmie 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 157 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus It was assumed on the argument by the counsel on both sides that the Circuit Court of the County of Washington in the District of Columbia is vested with the, same power in relation to intestate's estates in that county that is possessed by a county court in Maryland over lands lying within the county. When the proceedings of a court of competent jurisdiction are brought before another court collaterally, they are by no means subject to all the exceptions which might be taken to them on a direct appeal. The general and well settled rule of law in such cases is that when the proceedings are collaterally drawn in question and it appears on the face of them that the subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the court, they are voidabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Arredondo - 31 U.S. 691 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Arredondo, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 691 691 (1832) United States v. Arredondo 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 691 APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus The grant of the King of Spain to F. M. Arredondp and Son for land at Alachua in Florida gave a valid title to these claimants under the grant, according to the stipulations of the Treaty between the United States and Spain of 1819, the laws of nations, of the United States, and of Spain. Construction of the treaty with Spain of 1819 relative to grants of lands in the Territory of Florida and of the several acts of Congress passed for the adjustment of private claims to land within that territory. On 11 November, 1828, Fernando de la Maza Arredondo and son and others, their grantees, filed their petition in the Superior Court of the Eastern District of Florida against the United States under the provision of the sixth section of an...
Tag this Judgment!