Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-18-1975
Reported in : AIR1976AP134
A. Sambasiva Rao, Actg. C.J.1. Dry land of an extent of Ac. 3-11 juntas out of 'Survey No. 37 in Premavathipat village was acquired for the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of establishign the Agricultural University at Rajendranagar. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made on 2-11-1965. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award determining the market value of the land, as on the date of notification at Rs. 600 per acre, though the owner of the land claimed at the rate of Rs. 3 per square yard. At the instance of the claimant, reference was made under section 18 of the Act to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was numbered as O.P. 236/69. The second additional Chief Judge of that court enhanced the rate to Re. 0.75 per square yard by his order dated 10th December, 1970. The Special Tahsildar, who is the Land Acquisition Officer, did not prefer any appeal, but the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-23-1975
Reported in : AIR1976AP122
Raghuvir, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross-objections are filed against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and Motor Accidents Tribunal, Kurnool in M.V.O.P. No. 11 of 1969 dated 5th January 1972. The 3rd respondent, namely, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, is the appellant herein.2. On 6-12-1968, M.Veer Naidu, the 3rd respondent in this appeal was driving a tipper vehicle No. APV 4276, loaded with jelly, and was proceeding towards Srisailam Dam site. At K.M. Stones 3/6 and 3./5 on Ghat Road at the second turning he was proceeding at high speed and came across a jeep. APQ No. 2208. The 4th respondent, Shaik Salam was at the wheel. In this jeep late K. Sreerammurthy, a junior Engineer of the P.W.D. Janakiramaiah, an Assistant Engineer, Chalasani Rangarao, a supervisor and one P.V.Ramaniah and some others were proceeding towards Srisailam colony for their lunch after working at the Dam site. The jeep was negotiating upgradient at that spot.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-22-1975
Reported in : AIR1976AP1
Madhava Reddy, J. 1. The maintainability of these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India during the period in which proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 and the declaration of the President of India under cl. (1) of Article 359 is in force and the validity of the amendments effected in the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971, by the two Amending Ordinances of 1975 arise for consideration in these writ petitions. Having regard to the general importance of these questions and the far reaching consequences of these amendments these petitions have been referred to a Full Bench. 2. The first of these writ petitions is for the release of an advocate of this Court, Sri P. Venkateswarlu, who was arrested and detailed under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to the 'Principal Act'. 3. Sri P. Venkateswarlu was arrested on the intervening night of 25/26th June, 1975 at 1-30 A.M. under Section 3(1)(a) of the Maintenance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-09-1975
Reported in : AIR1976AP273
Madhava Reddy, J.1. This appeal by defendants 1 to 11 is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1970 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiffs, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rupees 57,751-90 together with interest pendente lite until realization and costs against the estate of late Sri A.K. Babu Khan in the hands of defendants 1 to 11.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late Sri A.K. Babu Khan pledged 2650 shares of the Hyderabad Construction Company Limited, Hyderabad through one Kapurachand Shrimal, Share and Stock Broker with Smt. Najeebunisa Begum to whom Sri Babu Khan had to pay Rs. 54,000. Sri A.K. Babu khan requested the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and one Sri Hargovind Bajjaj (who will be hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') who not being available to join the plaintiffs in filing the suit, has been impleaded as the 12th defendant, to redeem the said shares from Smt. Najeebunnisa Be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-15-1975
Reported in : [1976]103ITR222(AP)
Ramachandra Raju, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.S. No. 146/68, holding that certain income-tax returns and assessment orders produced by the income-tax department and sought by the plaintiffs can be marked as evidence. Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit are the petitioners. The suit is filed for partition by the wife and daughter of one late Bapa Rao, the deceased brother of defendant No. 1, Defendants 2 and 3 are the minor sons of defendant No. 1 and the 4th defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The suit for partition is filed alleging that Bapa Rao and the 1st defendant are the two sons of Appanna. 5th and 6th defendants are his two daughters. Appanna and his two sons constituted a joint family. Bapa Rao died on August 27, 1951, undivided with his father, Appanna, and his brother, the 1st defendant. On his death, under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, one-third share of Bapa Rao in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-31-1975
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1784
ORDERMadhusudan Rao, J.1. This revision is directed against the convictions and sentences passed by the learned Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Rajam in C. C. No. 81/73 on the file of his Court. The petitioners are the eight accused in the case. They have been convicted under Section 188, I.P.C. and each has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with a default sentence of one week simple imprisonment.2. The case of the prosecution is that the Taluk Magistrate, Cheepurupalli, passed an ex parte order under Section 144(2), Cr. P. C. on 4-8-1970 restraining the eight petitioners from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of certain lands said to be in the possession of one Boddepalli Ramulu, who filed a petition under Section 144, Cr. P. C. in M. C. No. 11/70 and that the petitioners disobeyed the order in the morning of 8-9-1970. The plea of the revision petitioners was that the Magistrate who passed the order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. had no jurisdiction to pass it and that a...
Tag this Judgment!