Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALT587
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. In these two writ petitions, challenge is to the Government Order being G.O. Rt. No. 57 Revenue (Endowments. II/1) Department dated 08-1 -2007, where under respondents 4 to 12 herein were appointed as members of Board of Trustees to the third respondent temple for a period of two years with effect from the date of taking oath of office and secrecy. The petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned G.O. as illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) and A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (hereafter called, the Rules).2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1020 of 2007 is a devotee of Sri Anjaneya Swami who statedly participates in early celebrations held in Sri Hanuman Devastanam, Karmanghat. The said temple is registered as religious institution classified under Section 6(a) of the Act. The first respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(6)ALD517; 2007(6)ALT259
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. One Tapal Thimmappa was granted a mining lease for Iron ore over an area of 231 acres in Sy. Nos. 1 and 2 of Malapanagudi Village, D. Hirehal Mandal, Ananthapur District on 16-8-1955 for a period of 20 years which expired on 15-5-1977.2. Thereafter, on 12-7-2004 a notification was published under Rule 59 (1) (a) & (ii) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, 'the Rules') declaring that the said 231 acres of land situated in Sy.Nos. 1 & 2 of Malapanagudi Village was available for regrant of a mining lease after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the notification. In pursuance thereof, M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Limited (9th respondent in W.P.Nos.14116 & 14818 of 2007) applied for grant of mining lease on 28-8-2004 over an extent of 93.52 hectares (231 acres). The petitioner in W.P.Nos.9723 & 14818 of 2007 - M/s. Tapal Thimmappa and Sons, a Partnership Firm made an application on 15-1-2005 for grant of mining lease over an area of 40.47 h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : III(2008)BC526
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 26.02.2007 and also granted interim stay, in W.P.M.P.No.4716 of 2007, on that day. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice, dated 23.01.2007, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and consequently to direct the respondents not to take any further action pursuant to the said impugned notice dated 23.01.2007.3. W.V.M.P.No.2755 of 2007 is filed to vacate the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No.4716 of 2007 on 26.02.2007. A reply affidavit also had been filed.4. Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners, had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD184; 2008(4)ALT189
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Special Grade Deputy Collector, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, in initiating proceedings for grant of occupancy right certificate in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 255, 258, 275/A, 292, 293, 299, 300, 301, 305 and 306 of Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board (for short 'Wakf Board') as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer not to grant occupancy rights in favour of the Wakf Board or any other institution.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased land in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy. Nos. 299 and 300 of Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, vide registered sale deed dated 4.2.2006 from Smt. Sayeeda Zamrudh Begum W/o. Md. Fayyaz and others. The vendors of the petitioner have been granted occupancy right certificates and mutation was also effected duly recor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD6
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the order, dated 16-11-2000, passed by the learned Special Court and the order dated 13-06-1997 passed by the learned Special Tribunal in L.G.A. No.30 of 1997 and L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 respectively after calling for the records pertaining thereto, on the premise that the orders have been passed without jurisdiction.2. The unsuccessful respondent is the writ petitioner and the second respondent herein is the applicant.3. The facts lie in a narrow compass : The applicant filed L.G.O.P. No. 5 of 1990 on the file of the Chairman, Special Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, against the respondent under Section 7-A of the said Act. That application was filed on the premise that the applicant purchased the house bearing No. 4-3-65 along with the appurtenant land under a registered sale deed dated 05-02-1969 and she was the owner thereof and that the respondent forc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ALD105
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. Since a common issue in all these four writ petitions is involved, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners in all these four writ petitions passed the qualifying examination, namely, two years intermediate course and are eligible for being admitted into the Engineering Course in 'B' category seats. The petitioners claim that though they have visited respondent Nos. 4 and 5 colleges many times, they were not informed about the details of the availability of 'B' category seats nor they were considered for admission under the said category; that they came to know that respondent No. 3 commenced the process of admission of students in 'B' category seats without prior notification and proper intimation to the general public. It is averred that though respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have been indulging in blatant violation of the Rules framed by the Government as notified in G.O. Ms. No. 53 dated 10.5.2006 in filling up 'B' category seats, by keeping...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD743
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. In these two writ petitions, challenge is to the Government Order being G.O.Rt. No. 57 Revenue (Endowments.II/l) Department dated 8.1.2007, whereunder respondents 4 to 12 herein were appointed as members of Board of Trustees to the third respondent Temple for a period of two years with effect from the date of taking oath of office and secrecy. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned G.O. as illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) and A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (hereafter called, the Rules).2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1020 of 2007 is a devotee of Sri Anjaneya Swami who statedly participates in early celebrations held in Sri Hanuman Devastanam, Karmanghat. The said Temple is registered as religious institution classified under Section 6(a) of the Act. The first respondent,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ALD521; 2008(3)ALT519; [2008(118)FLR156]; (2008)IIILLJ460AP
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In these two Writ Petitions, similar questions fall for consideration, though one arises out of an appeal preferred under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Gratuity Act') and the other under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short 'the Shops Act'). The petitioners, in both the Writ Petitions, are the employees of private establishments.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 16035 of 2007 was employed as a Manager in the Cement Manufacturers Association. After rendering service for about 13 years, he submitted his resignation. Alleging that his employer did not pay the gratuity due to him, he approached the authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad, under the Gratuity Act. Through an order, dated 19.02.2007, the authority directed the employer of the petitioner i.e., the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, to pay a sum of Rs. 2,58,977/-. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal P.G.A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(6)ALT43
ORDERB. Chandra Kumar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel.2. Since all these Applications are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:In the suit in C.S. No. 14 of 1958 filed by one Dildarunnisa Begum and others for partition of Matruka properties of Khurshid Jah Paiga, a preliminary decree was passed on 28-06-1963. The parties in Application No. 729 of 2007 have compromised the matter out of the Court. Accordingly, they have filed a compromise memo along with a plan signed by all the parties and consequently the compromise had been recorded on 23-08-2007.4. M/s. IDPL Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'IDPL Housing Society') had filed Application No. 728 of 2007 along with a plan showing A-schedule property to pass final decree in C.S. No. 14 of 1958 to the extent of Ac.58-00 out of out of Ac.65-00 in Sy. No. 163 of Hydemagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(6)ALD476; 2008(1)ALT151
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. PETITIONER/defendant No. 1 in O.S.No.4 of 2002 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle calls in question the order dated 24-01- 2007 passed by the learned Judge in I.A. No. 646 of 2005 in I.A.No.437 of 2002 in the said suit, whereunder the I.A. filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff under Order IX Rule 9 r/w 151 CPC for restoring the I.A.No.437 of 2004 against the proposed 4th respondent/4th defendant was allowed. 2. THE 1st respondent/plaintiff-bank filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,69,351/- along with interest and costs against the petitioner/1st defendant and two others in which defendants filed I.A.No.437 of 2004 for rejection of the plaint. When the same came up for trial, the 3rd defendant died on 25-02-2004 leaving behind him the proposed 4th respondent/4th defendant as his legal heir. Consequent to his death the plaintiff-bank filed I.A.No.437 of 2004 for impleading the proposed 4th defendant as legal heir of 3rd defendant a...
Tag this Judgment!