Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-29-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT529
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the orders passed by the 2nd respondent - A.P. Housing Board requiring the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,10,299/- for purposes of selling land admeasuring 49.33 Sq. yards situated at M.J. Road, at Hyderabad, in favour of the writ petitioner.2. The facts to the extent relevant are that the writ petitioner has occupied a vacant strip of land admeasuring 49.33 sq. yards belonging to the Housing Board. It was adjoining to Block No. 7, Pay and Accounts Office, situated at M.J. Road, Hyderabad. The writ petitioner has been in occupation of this strip of land for a very long time now. He has earlier, in the company of Sri T. Prabhu Singh instituted WP No. 21801 of 1994 in this court seeking a writ of mandamus not to dispossess them from the land in question. That writ petition came to be disposed of on 23.3.1995 with a direction to the A.P. Housing Board to issue notice to the petitioners fixing up t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-19-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT768
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Five petitioners herein are residents of Regatipalli village. They filed present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents (District Collector, Ananthapur, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Dharmavaram, and the Tahasildar, Dharmavaram Mandal) in finalizing list of beneficiaries for assignment of agricultural lands in the village as illegal and arbitrary.2. The affidavit in support of writ petition filed by first petitioner contains the following main allegations. It is submitted that the petitioners are landless poor persons and they eke out their livelihood by doing agricultural work and the petitioners are entitled for assignment of agricultural land in terms of the government orders which are in vogue. The respondents have proposed to grant agricultural land available in Regatipalli village, Dharmavaram Mandal in favour of landless poor persons. The 3rd respondent has notified the list of eligible persons through his proceedings i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-23-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALT611
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued rule nisi on 19-4-2007.2. Counter affidavits, additional affidavits and reply affidavits were filed and written arguments also were submitted in addition to the submissions made by the respective Counsel in open Court. Certain subsequent events also were brought to the notice of the Court and apart from the material papers initially placed, additional material papers as well had been placed before this Court.3. M/s. Ghanta Infrastructure Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, represented by its Director Sri M. Raghuveer, filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings ARG-II/PJ/FY07/04568 dated 12-12-2006 and the consequential proceedings ARG 1/PJ/FY07/04730 dated 22-12-2006 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to accept the bid of the petitioner in respect of the bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-30-2008
Reported in : AIR2009AP107
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners called in question the legality and validity of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the Rules') notified by respondent No. 1 vide G.O.Ms. No. 537, Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, dated 11.10.2000.The petitioners, most of whom are industrial units involved in the processing and pulverizing of mineral and some of them who are lessees to extract mineral such as Granite, Dolamite, White Shale, Lime Stone, steatite have mainly felt aggrieved by the definition of 'Mineral' contained in Rule 2(1)(h) of the Rules as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 330 dated 14.06.2001.THE PETITIONERS' CASE:The case of the petitioners in short is that the definition of 'Mineral', which enlarged the scope of mineral as defined in Section 3(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') is far beyond the delegated power of respondent No. 1. The petitioners averred that by e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALD163; 2008(5)ALT7
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order of Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 168 of 1998, dated 06.11.2002. In exercise of appellate powers under Section 20 of Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereafter called, the Act), the learned Chief Judge, confirmed the order of learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 03.04.1998 in R.C.No. 436 of 1993, whereby and whereunder petitioner was directed to vacate the premises bearing mulgi No. 3-5-1145/1 situated at Kachiguda 'X' Roads, Hyderabad. Though the jural relationship is denied by petitioner, for the sake of convenience, petitioner is referred to as tenant and the respondent is referred to as landlord in this order. Respondent (landlord) is resident of Alberts, Canada, and he sued for eviction of tenant through his General Power of Attorney (GPA) Sri Thakur Ratan Singh. The eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant failed to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)195; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)16
R. Kantha Rao, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Sessions Case No. 291 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and no separate sentence being awarded for the offence under Section 324 of IPC on the ground that life imprisonment has been awarded for the major offence.2. The gravamen of charge against the appellant is that he voluntarily caused the death of S. Jaibunnisa and S. Khader Basha, the deceased 1 and 2 by stabbing them with knife and also voluntarily caused injuries to his wife Shaik Hussain Bi (P.W-5) and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and 324 of IPC respectively.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows:The deceased No. 1 S. Jaibunnisa, is the wife of the deceased No. 2 S. Khade...
Tag this Judgment!