Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972AP83
Vaidya, J.1. The petitioner is a woman student who had applied for admission to the Kakatiya Medical College,. a college, run by the Regional Medical Education Society. Warangal in the first year M. B. B. S. of the five-and-half year integrated course. The petitioner was born at Vijayawada on the 10th June 1951 and in 1954 she along with her mother started living with her maternal grandfather. Lingam Venkaiah, at Kundanapalli in Adilabad District. The grandfather was working as a contractor with M/s. Sashikant Karsonji & Co. from 1954 to 1959. From the year 1959 onwards till 1962 he had been working as a contractor to the Singarent Collieries Company at mandamarri and Ramagundam. The petitioner was born at Vijayawada when her maternal grand-father was living there. It is stated the maternal grand-father is living in Telangana from 1954 onwards as stated above. The petitioner and her mother moved from Vijayawada t Telengana along with her grand-father as the petitioner's father. Nagabhu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971AP118
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, two questions of some importance are raised. The first questions whether as a result of the Supreme Court decision in A. V. S. N. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, : [1970]1SCR115 , striking down Section 3 and Rule 3 made thereunder as unconstitutional, Section 2 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Public Employment Act' survives and consequently the Mulki rules which were repealed by virtue of Section 2 continue to be repealed. Secondly if Section 2 of the Public Employment Act is found not to be surviving after Section 3 has been found to be void, whether Mulki rules ceased to be effective after the formation of the Andhra Pradesh State on 1-11-1956 or thereafter.2. In order to appreciate the implications of these contentions, it is useful to survey the historical background of the Public Employment Act. The Telengana area formerly was a part of the State of Hyderabad. The Hyderaba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Oregon v. Mitchell - 400 U.S. 112 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) Oregon v. Mitchell No. 43, Orig. Argued October 19, 1970 Decided December 21, 1970 * 400 U.S. 112 ON BILL OF COMPLAINT Syllabus These original actions involve the constitutionality of three provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 which (1) lower the minimum age of voters in both state and federal elections from 21 to 18, (2) bar the use of literacy tests (and similar voting eligibility requirements) for a five-year period in state and federal elections in any area where such tests are not already proscribed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and (3) forbid States from disqualifying voters in presidential and vice-presidential elections for failure to meet state residency requirements and provide uniform national rules for absentee voting in such elections. Held: (1) The 18-year-old minimum-age requirement of the Voting Rights Act Amendments is valid for nation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974AP240
Vaidya, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant in this Second Appeal filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the 2nd respondent, Ist defendant in the suit, on 24th October , 1960 after obtaining full consideration for the sale from the plaintiff. The appellant was also put in possession of the suit property. It is agreed between the parties that the 2nd respondent will execute a sale deed within a period of two years. The case of the appellant is that the period of two years was stipulated in the agreement of sale as that was thought to be sufficient period in which the 2nd respondent would obtain a Ryotwari patta under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act , hereinafter referred to as 'the Inams Abolition Act' . The 2nd respondent obtained the patta ; but instead of executing a sale deed in favour of the appellant , executed it in favour of the Ist respondent , the 2nd defendant in the suit. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1972Kant98; AIR1972Mys98
Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a common question of law as to the constitutionality of the provisions of the Mysore (Abolition of Cash Grants) Act, 1967. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises for determination. AH these petitioners were Setting cash grants called Rusum Deshpandyagiri from the former State of Hyderabad. They have claimed that the new State of Mysore should pay them cash grants from 30-7-1952 onwards.2. W. P. No. 1289 of 1967 was filed before the Act came into force. In that petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a mandamus directing the State Government to pay him the cash grant from 30-7-1952. In the remaining four petitions the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, has been challenged. In W. P. No. 2733 of 1968 and W. P. No. 126 of 1969, the petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar who determined the compensation payable to them under the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1972Mad365
Raghavan, J.1. This batch of writ petitions relate to the validity of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act 23 of 1969. The allegations in each of these writ petitions are almost the same and for the sake of convenience we set out the allegations in W.P. 6 of 1970. The petitioners owns in Perungudi vattam. Thirumayam taluk Pudukottai Division. Tiruchirapalli Dt. Punja and nanja lands of an extent of 25 acres known as Kadayakudi alias Vichitraraya Raghunathasamudram. These lands were acquired by the joint family of which the petitioner was a member by purchase from the alienees of the original inamdars or their descendants. The petitioner got the above lands for his share at the partition in the joint family.2. In the year 1888 Pudukottai Darbar framed rules for the settlement of inams known as pudukottai Inam Settlement Rules. 1888 similar to the Madras Inam Settlement Rules. 1859. Under the said Pudukottai Inam Rules, Inams were converted i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)1MLJ90
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. This batch of writ petitions relate to the validity of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act (XXIII of 1969). The allegations in each of these writ petitions are almost the same and for the sake of convenience we set out the allegations in W.P. No. 6 of 1970. The petitioner owns in Perungudi Vattam, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai Division, Tiruchirapalli District punja, and nanja lands of an extent of 25 acres known as Kadayakudi alias Vichitraraya Raghunatha samudram. There lands were acquired by the joint family of which the petitioner was a member by purchase from the alienees of the original inamdars or their descendants. The petitioner got the above lands for his share at the partition in the joint family.2. In the year 1888 Pudukottai Darbar framed rules for the settlement of inams known as Pudukottai Inam Settlement Rules, 1888 similar to the Madras Inam Settlement Rules, 1859. Under the said Pudukottai Inam Rules, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1972Cal293,76CWN57
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioners against an appellate order of the learned Munsif, rejecting the petitioners' application for pre-emption under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.2. One Hazi Fakiruddin, since deceased, the father of the petitioners Nos. 1-7 and husband of petitioner No. 8, was a co-sharer tenant with respect to the land in khaitan No. 235 in mouja Chandpur in the district of Malda. The opposite party No. 4, another co-sharer, on 5th of April, 1965, transferred. 223/4th acre of land out of the lands in the aforesaid khaitan to opposite party nos. 1-3, who are neither co-sharers nor raiyats possessing adjoining land of the said khaitan, for a consideration of a copy of Holi koran, under a deed described as 'Heba-bil-ewaz'. For the purpose of registration the said deed was valued at Rs. 1,000/-. The said Hazi Fakiruddin, thereafter, made an application on 11th of June, 1965, to the Revenue Officer praying pre-em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1972Mad388
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She filed the suit for declaration of little to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant. Her case was that the suit property originally formed part of a Devadasi Maniba and that she purchased it after it had been enfranchised under Exs. A-3 and A-7 in the year 1960 by virtue of a sale deed. Ex. A-1 dated 17-4-1961 from the last service-holder Thangammal. The complaint of the plaintiff is that the defendant is asserting title to the suit property and is resisting the claim of the title of the plaintiff. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit land was originally waste that it was reclaimed by the predecessors-in-interest and that they had been in possession right through. It is his definite case that neither the plaintiff nor her vendor was in possession of the suit property at any time. He claimed that the suit property came to be allotted to him in a partition in his family. He also claimed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist. - 410 U.S. 719 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973) Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District No. 71-1456 Argued January 8, 1973 Decided March 20, 1973 410 U.S. 719 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Appellee district exists for the purpose of acquiring, storing, and distributing water for farming in the Tulare Lake Basin. Only landowners are qualified to elect the district's board of directors, votes being apportioned according to the assessed valuation of the lands. A three-judge District Court, against challenge by appellants, held that the limitation of the franchise to landowners comported with equal protection requirements. Held: 1. Restricting the voters to landowners who may or may not be residents does not violate the principle enunciated in such cases as Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 , and Kramer ...
Tag this Judgment!