Partly allowed

Smt. Ramani Ramachander v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Jul 2007WP/31946/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition challenged an order rejecting an exemption application under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The court set aside the rejection with a direction to the State to pass appropriate orders afresh after giving notice to the petitioner and potential rival claimants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside in relation to petitioner; direction to respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application afresh after giving notice to petitioner and rival claimants.

Smt. Ramani Ramachander Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.31946 of 1997

¶4

Dated: 10.07.2007

¶5

Between: Smt.Ramani Ramchandar ..... PETITIONER AND 1.State of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another …RESPONDENTS

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.31946 of 1997

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed challenging the order in Memo No.73073/UC-II/(2)/91-6 dated

¶10

10.12.1996 passed by the 1^st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh. By this order, the application filed by the petitioner for grant of exemption under Section 20 (1) (b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) was rejected. The writ petitioner seeks a direction to the 1^st respondent to pass an order under Section 34 of the Act for revision of the draft statement under Section 8 (4) and the final statement under Section 9 of the Act.

¶11

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, submits that the order impugned in this writ petition has already been challenged by the sister of the petitioner in W.P.No.31850 of 1997 and this Court by order

¶12

dated 09.04.2007 held that the impugned order was devoid of merits and accordingly it was set aside with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner therein afresh after giving notice to her and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This is not disputed by other side.

¶13

Therefore, in view of the judgment referred to above, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the present petitioner is concerned and the 1^st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner afresh after giving notice. It is submitted by the leaned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, Sri G.Manohar, that there are rival claimants for the land in question claiming title over the land as protected tenants. Therefore, the 1^st respondent may also issue notice to them before passing orders on the application of the petitioner.

¶14

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶15

____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)

¶16

10-07-2007 Gsn.

Smt. Ramani Ramachander v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ramani Ramachander v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kommata Dubba Rajaiah, Vs Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer

S.Vimala Devi, Vs Government of India

Peddi Sammaiah Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Smt.Meena Cooper B. Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Sara Ravinder, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Duma Venkata Reddy Vs Kudumula Sudhakar Reddy