Allowed

K. Bhaskar v. Sri a. Prasad

Telangana HC24 Jan 2013CC/1355/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding assigned lands and pending contempt cases alleging violation of the disposal orders. Review petitions were filed challenging the disposal at the admission stage without hearing the respondents. The Court held that the Limitation Act does not apply to constitutional writ reviews and allowed the reviews due to the lack of opportunity for the respond

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 23.07.2008 were set aside; Review Petitions 17719/2011 and 37106/2011 allowed; Writ Petitions 15826/2008 and 15825/2008 restored to file; Contempt cases 1318/2010 and 1355/2010 dismissed.

K. Bhaskar Vs Sri a. Prasad — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

Review WPMP No.17719/2011 in W.P.No.15826/2008 Review WPMP No.37106/2011 in W.P.No.15825/2008 AND

¶3

CONTEMPT CASE NOs.1318 & 1355 OF 2010

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

W.P.No.15826 of 2008 and W.P.No.15825 of 2008 were disposed of by this Court by separate orders dated 23.07.2008. Alleging that the said orders have been violated by the respondents, the writ petitioners filed C.C.No.1318 of 2010 and C.C.No.1355 of 2010 respectively with a prayer to punish the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶6

While the said contempt cases are pending, the respondents filed Review WPMP No.17719 of 2011 and Review WPMP No.37106 of 2011 under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. with a prayer to review the orders dated 23.07.2008 in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 and W.P.No.15825 of 2008 respectively.

¶7

Since common questions of fact and law are involved, all the matters are heard together and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and respondents as they are arrayed in the writ petitions.

¶8

I have heard Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents.

¶9

For proper appreciation of the controversy involved, it is necessary to refer to the facts in brief.

¶10

W.P.No.15826 of 2008 was filed by four petitioners, who claim to be the assignees of different extents of land situated in Cherivi Village, Satyaveedu Mandal, Chittoor District. It was pleaded in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 that the 1^st petitioner’s father by name Jayaram Naidu was assigned Ac.4-58 cents in Sy.No.627 and another Ac.3-72 cents in Sy.No.650/1C vide Patta No.247 and that after the

¶11

demise of his father the 1^st petitioner

¶12

(K.J.

¶13

Chandrasekhar) was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The 2^nd petitioner (R. Sampoornamma, w/o. Varadarajulu Naidu) was assigned Ac.3-96 cents of land in Sy.No.623 and another extent of Ac.1-01 cent in Sy.No.615/6 vide Patta No.248. The 3^rd petitioner (R. Vijayamma, w/o. Hemadri) was assigned Ac.2-88 cents in Sy.No.624 and another extent of Ac.0-76 cents of land in Sy.No.625 and Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.626 vide Patta No.249. The 4^th petitioner (G. Babu, S/o. Ramachandra Naidu) was assigned Ac.4-39 cents of land in Sy.No.599/1 vide Patta No.245. It was claimed that all the petitioners were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective lands and they were eking their livelihood by raising Mango crops over the said lands.

¶14

W.P.No.15825 of 2008 was filed by four petitioners, who claim to be the assignees of different extents of land situated in Cherivi Village, Satyaveedu Mandal, Chittoor District. It was pleaded in W.P.No.15825 of 2008 that the 1^st petitioner (K. Bhaskar S/o. Jayaram Naidu) was assigned Ac.3-70 cents in Sy.No.622.3 vide Patta No.246. The 2^nd petitioner (R.V. Hemadri, S/o. Varadarajulu) was assigned Ac.2-20 cents of land in Sy.No.650/1B, another extent of Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.613 and Ac.1-92 cents in Sy.No.614 vide Patta No.244. The 3^rd petitioner (K. Bhagyaradhi, w/o. Chandrasekhar) was assigned Ac.1-84 cents in Sy.No.645/1, another extent of Ac.0-14 cents in Sy.No.646/1, Ac.0-95 cents in Sy.No.643/2, Ac.2-44 cents in Sy.No.595 and Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.598/3 vide Patta No.177. The 4^th petitioner (K. Vanajakshamma W/o. Jayaram Naidu) was assigned Ac.3-50 cents of land in Sy.No.622/2 vide Patta No.243. It was claimed that all the petitioners were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective lands and they were eking their livelihood by raising Mango crops over the said lands. It was also pleaded that the petitioners were

¶15

landless poor and were economically backward and in recognition of the same the above said lands were assigned in their favour by the Government.

¶16

While stating that the entire village of Cherivi was declared by the Government of A.P. as Special Economic Zone for the purpose of establishing an Industrial Park and for the said purpose the assigned lands in possession of the petitioners were also acquired, but the exgratia to which they were entitled to under law was not paid, W.P.No.15826 of 2008 & W.P.No.15825 of 2008 were filed to declare the action of the respondents therein in not paying the exgratia to the petitioners as arbitrary and illegal.

¶17

Both W.P.Nos.15826 & 15825 of 2008 were disposed of by this Court at the stage of admission by separate orders dated 23.07.2008.

¶18

It is to be noticed that one Tamina Bivi and another had earlier filed W.P.No.4805 of 2008 assailing the action of the respondents therein in seeking to dispossess them from Ac.5-26 cents of land situated in Sy.No.378 of Ramachandrapuram Village, Satyaveedu Mandal, Chittoor District which was assigned in favour of one Pakir Saheb (the husband of the 1^st petitioner and the father of the 2^nd petitioner therein). It was the case of the petitioners therein that after the death of the assignee - Pakir Saheb – they were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the land in question and that the Government having proposed to acquire the said land for a public purpose was trying to dispossess them without resorting to the land acquisition proceedings and without paying exgratia. The said writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission by order dated 28.04.2008 holding that even if the assigned land was required for a public purpose, the only remedy available to the authorities was to acquire the same by resorting to land acquisition proceedings and paying exgratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. It was also held that if the patta granted in favour of Pakir Saheb was not cancelled, the petitioners therein were entitled to exgratia in terms of

¶19

G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993 and accordingly the respondents therein were directed to acquire the said land after following the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 if it was really needed for a public purpose and to pay exgratia as provided for under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993 if the DKT patta was not cancelled.

¶20

When W.P.No.15826 of 2008 and W.P.No.15825 of 2008 came up for admission, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petitions can be disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.04.2008 in W.P.No.4805 of 2008 as the writ petitioners were also assignees and their assigned lands were sought to be acquired for the very same public purpose. As the said fact was not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents, W.P.Nos.15826 and 15825 of 2008 were disposed of on 23.07.2008 at the stage of admission following the order in W.P.No.4805 of 2008 with directions as under:

¶21

“In the circumstances, following the order in W.P.Nos.4805 of 2008, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to take further steps for acquisition of the lands in question after payment of ex-gratia to the petitioners herein as provided under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993, in case it is found that the DKT pattas granted in favour of the petitioners is subsisting as on today. No costs.”

¶22

The present contempt cases i.e., C.C.No.1318 and C.C.No.1355 of 2010 came to be filed in September, 2010 with a prayer to punish the Special Deputy Collector (SEZ), Tirupati, Chittoor District for violating the orders dated 23.07.2008 in W.P.Nos.15826 & 15825 of 2008. It was pleaded in the contempt cases that by order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (SEZ), Tirupati, though the lands in question were resumed by cancelling the pattas of the petitioners, they were not paid the exgratia. It was also pleaded that the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Satyaveedu, by

¶23

proceedings dated 14.10.2009 recommended the cases of all the petitioners for payment of exgratia.

¶24

In response to the notice ordered by this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, filed counter-affidavit dated 2.10.2010 stating that consequent to the disbandment of the post of the Special Deputy Collector, L.A. (SEZ), Tirupati, the left over work pertaining to L.A. (SEZ), Unit-III, has been handed over to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati and therefore he is looking after the work of L.A. (SEZ), Unit-III, Tirupati. So far as the allegations in the contempt case, it is stated that the Tahsildar, Satyaveedu had submitted his proposals for payment of exgratia to petitioner No.4 in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 (G. Babu) vide his proceedings dated 11.12.2009 and the same was recommended to the District Collector, Chitoor, by the then L.A. (SEZ) vide his proceedings dated 17.12.2009. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector, Chittoor, by proceedings dated 3.5.2010 sanctioned exgratia in favour of the 4^th petitioner (G. Babu), however the payment had not been made in view of further report called by the Collector. So far as the other three petitioners in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 are concerned, the proposals were submitted by the Tahsildar, Satyaveedu vide proceedings dated 18.09.2010. The same was recommended by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector on 18.09.2010 itself. As the value of Mango trees existing on the lands of the said three petitioners was not included in the exgratia proposals, the necessary report was called for from the Assistant Director of Horticulture, and such report was furnished on 27.09.2010. The said proposals were again submitted to the District Collector on 30.09.2010 and the exgratia amount to which the petitioners are entitled to will be paid as and when the sanction orders are received from the District Collector.

¶25

In the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in C.C.No.1355 of 2010 arising out of W.P.No.15825 of 2008, it has been stated that on the basis of the proposal submitted by the

¶26

Tahsildar, Satyaveedu, the District Collector, Chittoor granted the necessary sanction for payment of exgratia the petitioner No.4 in W.P.No.15825 of 2008 (Smt. K. Vanajakshamma) and accordingly a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- was paid to her by way of Demand Draft, dated 24.4.2010. So far as the other three petitioners are concerned, the proposals were sent by the Tahsildar, Satyaveedu by proceedings dated 18.09.2010. Subsequently, on the basis of the report furnished by the Assistant Director of Horticulture furnishing the value of Mango trees, the Tahsildar submitted consolidated exgratia proposals vide proceedings dated 30.09.2010. The said proposals have been recommended by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector and as soon as the sanction is received, the exgratia would be paid to the petitioners.

¶27

In view of the stand taken in the counter-affidavits, the contempt cases were adjourned by this Court from time to time to enable the respondents to report compliance.

¶28

However an additional counter-affidavit came to be filed on 27.01.2011 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati stating that though the 4^th petitioner in C.C.No.1318 of 2010 (G. Babu) was paid the exgratia on 16.10.2010, so far as the petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned, the District Collector called for a detailed report with regard to the landholding of the members of the family of the petitioners and in pursuance thereof a detailed enquiry was held in which it was revealed that the petitioners had obtained DKT pattas on 22.07.1985 contrary to the assignment policy suppressing the fact of their ineligibility for assignment. It is further stated that the said petitioners are not eligible for grant of DKT pattas since their family members in joint family were granted DKT pattas and the said details have been furnished in a statement in para-6. It was found that the pattas were granted to the father, son and daughter-in-law and the same is against the assignment policy. Therefore a show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 was issued to the petitioners 1 to 3 calling

¶29

upon them to show-cause as to how they are eligible for payment of exgratia and the further proceedings are pending.

¶30

An additional counter-affidavit has been filed in C.C.No.1355 of 2010 also stating that the petitioners 2 and 3 are not entitled for exgratia since their family members were already granted DKT Pattas. It is also alleged that the petitioners 1 and 3 had alienated the lands assigned to them to M/s. Supreme Real Estates, Rajahmundry in violation of the conditions of patta as well as the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and therefore a show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 was issued calling upon them to show-cause as to how they are eligible for payment of exgratia.

¶31

Having received the additional counter-affidavits, the petitioners in C.C.No.1318 of 2010 filed a reply affidavit denying the allegation that the petitioners obtained the DKT pattas contrary to the assignment policy. It is also contended that the respondents are estopped from initiating any action after the lands were resumed stating that their exgratia would be paid as per G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993 and after the said lands were alienated in favour of APIIC and SRI CITY. It is further explained that the 1^st petitioner was never granted DKT patta and that he was claiming exgratia only the lands which were assigned in favour of his father. So far as the 2^nd petitioner is concerned, the fact that his son and daughter-in-law are granted pattas has not been disputed, however it is contended that as the son was separated long back much prior to the date of assignment, the 2^nd respondent cannot be held to be ineligible for grant of patta. So far as the 3^rd petitioner is concerned, the fact that her husband was granted assignment has not been disputed, however it is contended that under the Board Standing Orders an individual can be granted DKT patta and therefore the contention that the 3^rd petitioner was ineligible is untenable.

¶32

The petitioners in C.C.No.1355 of 2010 filed a Reply affidavit

¶33

denying the allegation that they had alienated the assigned lands. It is also stated that M/s. Supreme Real Estates filed a false suit with fabricated documents against the petitioners 1 and 3 and the same was dismissed.

¶34

At that stage, review petitions being Review WPMP No.17719 of 2011 and Review WPMP No.37106 of 2011 were filed by the respondents seeking review of the orders in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 and W.P.No.15825 of 2008 respectively contending primarily that several important facts which disentitle the petitioners to receive exgratia including that the petitioners had alienated the land in question even by the date of filing the writ petitions, could not be brought to the notice of this Court since the writ petitions were disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶35

Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the review petitions contending inter alia that the review petitions which are filed with an inordinate delay of about 900 days cannot be entertained.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that having allowed the orders in W.P.Nos.15826 and 15825 of 2008 to become final and having obtained the consent of the petitioners for taking the possession of the lands in question assuring payment of exgratia and having resumed the lands in question, it is not open to the respondents now to initiate proceedings for cancellation of DKT pattas on any ground whatsoever. While relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, UTTARANCHAL v. VED PRAKASH JOSH I^[1] , UNION OF INDIA v. SUBEDAR DEVASSY PV^[2] and PRITHWI NATH RAM v. STATE OF JHARKHAND^[3] , the learned counsel vehemently contended that it is impermissible under law to contend now in the contempt proceedings that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of DKT pattas. It is further contended that the action of the respondents in attempting to side-track

¶37

the entire issue so as to deprive the petitioners to what is legitimately due to them is contemptuous and therefore they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶38

I have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the entire original record placed before this Court. It is also brought to my notice by the learned Government Pleader that after filing the additional counter-affidavit, the District Collector had proceeded with the enquiry and a final order was passed on 15.03.2011 rejecting exgratia to the petitioners in C.C.No.1318 of 2010 and the petitioner No.2 in C.C.No.1355 of 2010 on the ground that they are wealthy persons and they got assignment in excess of the prescribed limit and moreover they are not residents of Cherivi village. So far as the petitioners 1 and 3 in C.C.No.1355 of 2010 are concerned, it is stated that the exgratia was rejected on the ground that they had alienated the assigned lands in violation of the statutory provisions.

¶39

It is no doubt true that the orders in W.P.Nos.15826 & 15825 of 2008, dated 23.07.2008 have become final. As per the said orders, the respondents are bound to pay the exgratia to the petitioners as provided under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993 provided the pattas granted in their favour are subsisting as on the date of the said order i.e., 23.07.2008. However the fact remains that the writ petitions were disposed of at the stage of admission and there was no opportunity to the respondents to put forth their version. As noticed above the review petitions came to be filed by the respondents primarily on the ground that the writ petitions were disposed of without hearing the respondents.

¶40

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to take up the review petitions in the first instance since in the event of allowing the review petitions the writ petitions would be restored to file by recalling the orders dated 23.07.2008. In such an event, the orders dated 23.07.2008 would no more survive and consequently the

¶41

contempt cases deserve no consideration.

¶42

So far as the review petitions are concerned, the first objection raised by the writ petitioners is that there is a delay of 900 days in filing the same and that neither the delay is explained nor an application is filed to condone the delay. To substantiate the said objection, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon STATE (CBI)/S.P.E. v. P.V. NARASIMHA RA O^[4] , BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. V. PRESIDING OFFICER^[5] and GANGADHARA PALO v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER^[6] .

¶43

The question whether the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is no longer res integra.

¶44

After reviewing the decided cases on the subject and the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, a Division Bench of this Court in M. JAGADISHWAR RAO v. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM (W.A.No.881 of 2006 dt. 1.9.2006) held that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to a petition filed for review of an order passed by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

In none of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a contra view was expressed. In fact, the question as posed before the Division Bench of this Court in M. JAGADISHWAR RAO v. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM (W.A.No.881 of 2006 dt. 1.9.2006) never fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the said decisions.

¶46

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the delay in filing is not a ground to reject the review petitions at the threshold. Moreover, after going through the material available on record which is selfexplanatory as to the circumstances that led to filing the review petitions, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable reasons for not filing the review petitions immediately after the disposal of the

¶47

writ petitions.

¶48

Now, coming to the merits of the case, it is not disputed by the respondents that as on 23.07.2008 the DKT pattas in favour of the petitioners were subsisting. The record also reveals that the possession of the lands covered by the said DKT pattas was taken by the respondents only on 30.09.2009 after obtaining the consent of the petitioners. It is apparent that an enquiry with regard to the legality of the pattas granted to the petitioners was initiated at a later stage in pursuance of the directions of the District Collector, Chittoor, when the sanction was sought by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati for payment of exgratia as per the proposal submitted by the Tahsildar, Satyaveedu. Contending that the said enquiry revealed that the petitioners were ineligible for grant of pattas, show-cause notices were issued by the Joint Collector, Chittoor calling upon the petitioners as to how they are entitled to exgratia for the lands assigned to them. The allegations in the show cause notices included that (1) the petitioners were not residents of Cherivi Village even by the date of grant of pattas and that they are residents of Chennai, (2) the petitioners are wealthy persons, (3) pattas in respect of the Government lands were already granted to their family members and (4) the assigned lands was transferred to Supreme Real Estates, Rajahmundry.

¶49

The record reveals that the petitioners refused to participate in the enquiry stating that the matter is seized by this Court and the contempt proceedings are pending. However the Joint Collector passed final order dated 15.03.2011 holding that the petitioners were not entitled to exgratia.

¶50

On a careful consideration of the record placed before this Court, it is apparent that the petitioners in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 and W.P.No.15825 of 2008 are closely related. The 1^st petitioner in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 (K.J. Chandrasekhar) and the 1^st petitioner in W.P.No.15825 of 2008 (K.Bhaskar) are brothers, being the sons of Jayaram Naidu. Even according to the petitioners, Jayaram Naidu

¶51

was assigned Ac.4-58 cents and Ac.3-72 cents situated in Sy.Nos.627 and 650/1C respectively (covered by Patta No.247) and on his death his son K.J. Chandrasekhar succeeded to the said land. K. Bhaskar, another son of Jayaram Naidu, was assigned Ac.3-70 cents in Sy.No.622/3, vide Patta No.246, dated 22.07.1985. The petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.15825 of 2008 (K.Bhagyaradhi) is the wife of the petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 (K.J.Chandrasekhar). She was assigned under two different pattas the land admeasuring Ac.2-93 cents and Ac.3-94 cents respectively on 22.07.1985.

¶52

The petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 (R. Sampoornamma) is the wife of Varadarajulu Naidu who was assigned a total extent of about Ac.5-00 cents. The petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.15825 of 2008 (R.V. Hemadri) is the son of Varadarajulu Naidu. He was assigned a total extent of about Ac.4 ½ on 22.7.1985. The petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 (R.Vijayamma) is the wife of the petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.15825 of 2008 (R.V. Hemadri). She was assigned about Ac.4½ on 22.07.1985.

¶53

It is clear that the above said 6 petitioners are the family members of Jayaram Naidu and Varadarajulu Naidu. All of them put together were assigned a total extent of Ac.32-60 cents situated in Cherivi village. The DKT pattas were granted to all the petitioners except K.J. Chandrasekhar, the petitioner in W.P.No.15826 of 2008, on the same day i.e., 22.07.1985. The 1^st petitioner in W.P.No.15826 of 2008 (K.J. Chandrasekhar) claims to have succeeded to the assigned lands on the death of his father K. Jayaram Naidu, who was also granted the DKT patta on 22.07.1985.

¶54

In the light of the above facts borne out of the record, it appears to me that the allegation that the pattas were obtained by the petitioners by misrepresentation cannot be held to be wholly baseless. Moreover the enquiry held by the respondents revealed that none of the petitioners were residing in Cherivi village even by the date of the

¶55

assignments and all of them now residents of Chennai. It is also the specific case of the respondents that they are wealthy persons. In the circumstances, the 2^nd respondent cannot be found fault with in entertaining a doubt as to the validity of their pattas. In fact, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a strong prima facie case can be said to have been made out by the respondents that there are no bona fides in the claim of the assignees for exgratia.

¶56

Admittedly, W.P.Nos.15826 & 15825 of 2008 were disposed of at the stage of admission and there was no opportunity to the respondents to contest the claim of the petitioners for exgratia.

¶57

The order in W.P.No.4805 of 2008, dated 28.04.2008, shows that the petitioners therein were the wife and son of one Pakir Saheb, who was assigned the land to an extent of Ac.5-26 cents. May be that, there was no dispute about the validity of the patta granted in favour of Pakir Saheb, however the question is whether the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15826 & 15825 of 2008 can be placed on par with Pakir Saheb.

¶58

Since none of these aspects were considered by this Court while passing the orders dated 23.07.2008 and there was no opportunity to the respondents to contest the writ petitions, it is a fit case for exercising the review jurisdiction and to recall the orders dated 23.07.2008.

¶59

Accordingly, the orders dated 23.07.2008 are set aside and Rev.W.P.M.P.No.17719 of 2011 and Rev.W.P.M.P.No.37106 of 2011 are allowed. Consequently, W.P.Nos.15826 of 2008 and 15825 of 2008 are restored to file.

¶60

However, it is made clear that this Court shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on any of the allegations made by the respondents with regard to the entitlement of the writ petitioners to receive the exgratia. Whatever observations/findings are made in this order are only for the purpose of the review petitions and the same shall not have any bearing for deciding the writ petitions.

¶61

Accordingly, both the review petitions are allowed. Consequently C.C.Nos.1318 and 1355 of 2010 are dismissed as the orders alleged to be violated do not survive.

¶62

Dt: 24.01.2013 GBS

¶63

[1] 2005 SCC (Cri) 1357 [2] (2006) 1 SCC 613 [3] (2004) 7 SCC 261 [4] (2001) 9 SCC 249 [5] (2001) 9 SCC 691 [6] (2011) 4 SCC 602

K. Bhaskar v. Sri a. Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Bhaskar v. Sri a. Prasad

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

Chatla Chandrasekhar Vs Maheswar Reddy

Gundreddy Narayanamma Vs E.Malleswari

The Cloth Merchants Association, Vs Mohammed Abdul Azeem

Boyina Satyanarayana, Vs Smt. Sailaja Iyyer

K.J. Chandra Sekhar Vs Sri a. Prasad

RAchamalla Mohana Srinivas Vs Smt. Madabattula Varalakshmi