Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT742
P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.1. The extent and scope of jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 5 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971') fall for consideration in this writ petition.2. The order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, in Proceedings No. D5/9418/1997 dated 24.07.2000 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 and the consequential order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent herein, in proceedings No. B/2186/2000 dated 10.11.2000 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Act of 1971 are under challenge.3. The petitioners claim that they and respondents 3 and 4 herein share a common lineage. According to them, Kommidi Kanna Reddy and his brothers Kommidi Venkat Reddy, Kommidi Laxma Reddy, Kommidi Tirumal Reddy and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ALD528; 2008(3)ALT768
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The writ petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Marutla-II Village, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapur District. The 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 9-12-2003 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why his authorization should not be cancelled on the allegation that he had misused 193 quintals of food for work and also suspending the authorization pending enquiry.2. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice, the same was not accepted and the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 15-10-2005.3. It is to be noted that on the basis of the very same allegation of misappropriation of food for work rice, a complaint was lodged by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kuderu before the Station House Officer, Kuderu Police Station. The same was registered as Cr. No. 88 of 2002 under Section 409 of Indian Penal Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD33; 2008(4)ALT206
Bilal Nazki, A.C.J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is the President of Jamia Masjid, Subash Road, Secunderabad. He is aggrieved of amendment to Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board Conduct of Election Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules'), effected by G.O. Ms. No. 30 dated 29.6.2005. The contention of the petitioner is that he, being the President of the Managing Committee, was entitled to be elected to the Board under Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'), but in terms of the amendment, the Government has deleted Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-clause (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules, and by deletion, he no longer remains eligible for being elected as a Member of the Board. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the deletion of this clause from Rule 4 of the Rules is ultra vires to Sub-section 3(i) read with Section 14(1)(b) (iv) of the Act. This is conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005AP76; 2004(6)ALD769; 2004(6)ALT772
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. A Full Bench of this Court, desired that the question involved in these writ petitions, namely, whether an attempt to grab land, falls within the definition of land grabbing, under clause (e) of Section 2 of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act'), be considered by a larger Bench. The necessity was felt, on account of the conflicting views, taken by the Division Benches, in the decisions rendered in Syedulla V. Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act1 and Shalivahana Builders (P) Ltd. V. S.G. Co-op. Housing Society2 on the one hand, and R.Komaraiah V. Special Court, Hyd.3 and Bhavanarishi Co-operative Housing Society V. State of A.P and Other s4, on the other. In the former two cases, it was held that the definition of `land grabbing', under Section 2(e) of the Act, does not take in its fold, an attempt to grab land, and thereby, proceedings initiated, on the basis of allegations as to an attempt to grab, cann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD483; 2008(2)ALT493
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In these four writ petitions, the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), on different dates, proposing to acquire the lands of the respective petitioners, are challenged. The said notifications were issued for acquisition of lands, for the benefit of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short 'the Corporation').2. The petitioners state that they are the owners and possessors of the land and doing agriculture, thereon. They contend that the agriculture is the only source of their livelihood, and their lands were chosen for acquisition, with a view to help certain industrialists. Apart from pleading hardship on account of the proposed acquisition, the petitioners plead that the notifications were issued by an authority, not vested with the power, under the Act. It is stated that though the Act provides for publication of notifications, either by the Government, or by the District Collector...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(3)ALD766
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Since the questions of facts and law involved in all these writ petitions are common, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Petition Nos.22323, 22334 and 23999 of 1996 are filed challenging the common order passed by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, in LGC Nos.45 of 1991 and 12 of 1992 dated 25-9-1996.3. LGC No.45 of 1991 was filed under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 by the State against (1) C.P. Roy (2) Jagapathi Rao (deleted) (3) M.H. Chinoy (4) Anil Kundal (5) Smt. Cherukuri Srilaxmi (6) M/s. Meenakshi Constructions represented by its Managing Director Sivarama Prasad (7) Jamuna and (8) Shaik Ismail before the Special Court.4. LGC No.12 of 1992 was filed by the applicants viz., Cherukuri Srilaxmi and M/s. Meenakshi Constructions Company, represented by its Managing Director, Sivarama Prasad in the Court of the Additiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ALT536
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. W.V.M.P. No. 1165/2006 and W.V.M.P. No. 1589 of 2006 are filed by respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 respectively in the Writ Petition to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 6-6-2006 in W.P.M.P. No. 13221/2006.2. On 6-6-2006, notice before admission was ordered by this Court while granting interim order for a limited period. Subsequent thereto on 22-6-2006 rule nisi was issued and the interim order was extended until further orders.3. At the request of the Counsel representing the parties in the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition itself is being finally disposed of.4. The writ petitioner-M/s. Prakash Arts, prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in allowing respondent No. 3 to raise Uni-Pole in grave yards at (i) Taqia Amanullah Shah grave yard, (ii) Boat Club, Secunderabad, grave yard of Muthawalli Mr. Shaik Ali, (iii) Dargah/Masjid premises adjacent Tank Bund, behind the house of Prakash Arts, wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD627
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Writ Appeal No. 880 of 2001 is directed against a judgment dated 14-3-2001 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22704 of 2000 wherebyand whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of directing.'Consequently, the respondents are directed to declare the results of the examinations held in July/August, 2000, without insisting that each of the candidates should secure minimum of 50% in internal as well as the external examinations. The results shall be declared on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by each of the candidates in both internal and external examinations.'2. Writ Appeal No. 951 of 2001 is directed against an interim order dated 26-4-2001 passed by a learned single Judge in WP No. 7848 of 2001 directing the respondents therein to promote the students those who have secured 50% marks in internal and external examinations of theory in aggregate to the second year General Nursing Midwifery Course and such promotio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(6)ALT563
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.Introduction1. This batch of 15 cases involves common issues and hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. Writ Appeal No. 1053 of 2005 is filed by the Reserve Bank of India (for short 'the RBI') against common order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23156 of 2004. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition alongwith Writ Petition No. 24346 of 2004, 2501 of 2005 and W.P.M.P. No. 2333 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 23156 of 2004.3. Writ Appeal No. 1072 of 2005 is filed by M/s. Prudential Co-operative Bank Limited (for short 'the Bank') and the Official Liquidator against common order in Writ Petition No. 2501 of 2005.4. Writ Appeal No. 1086 of 2005 is filed by Bank and the Official Liquidator against common order in Writ Petition No. 23156 of 2004.5. Writ Appeal No. 1095 of 2005 is filed by the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies (for short 'the Registrar') against the common order in Writ Petition No. 23156...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008AP109
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.Since identical issues arise in these two writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions sought for a writ of mandamus to invalidate the amendment brought out to Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admission to Under-graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007 whereby Sub-clause (c) to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 has been inserted. The petitioners also sought for setting aside the allotment of MBBS seat to respondent No. 5 who is common in both the writ petitions, under NCC quota, by holding that the certificate obtained by respondent No. 5 after the qualifying examination of EAMCET, 2007 cannot be the basis for fixing the priorities.3. The facts in brief, shorn of needless details, run as under:The petitioners and respondent No. 5 in the two writ petitions completed their intermediate course and appeared for EAMCET, 2007 examinations cond...
Tag this Judgment!