SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 759

K. RAMASWAMY, M. N. VENKATACHALIAH
N. Krishnamachari – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Apsrtc, Hyderabad – Respondent


Advocates:
B.PARTHASARTHY, D.BHARATHI REDDY, D.PRAKASH REDDY, K.Madhava Reddy

(1) THE government of A. P. published the notification under Section 4(1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 8/7/1988 acquiring certain lands for the construction of bus stand complex in Tirupati town (Lord Balaji Pilgrimage Centre) followed by a declaration issued under Section 6 with which we would later deal with. The notification was challenged by the interested persons including the petitioner in WP Nos. 838 of 1990, 12450 of 1988, 12919 of 1988 and 13631 of 1988. In some of the writ petitions the APSRTC the beneficiary impleaded itself as a party respondent to the writ petitions. When the writ petitions had come up for final hearing, the name of the counsel for the Corporation was not printed in the cause list published by the High court. Consequently the counsel could not notice the posting of the writ petitions and the disposal thereof. Thereafter, the counsel filed an application for review of the orders of the division bench. We are informed that in two cases, the review petitions seem to have been dismissed on the ground that Corporation was not a party to the writ petitions and that, therefore, the review petition would not lie at their instance. The review pet



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top