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

2005 Supreme(AP) 241

B.PRAKASH RAO
Gandham Vajramma – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and land Records, Hyderabad – Respondent


B. PRAKASH RAO, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. Rangacharyulu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (General) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) SINCE common questions are involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being taken up together for disposal.

( 3 ) THE main point which arises for an adjudication in all these cases is as to whether the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under the a. P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 ?

( 4 ) THE few facts which are necessary for disposal of these cases are that the petitioners herein filed applications under section 11 (a) of the A. P. (Andhra Area) estates (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short the Act ) seeking for grant of patta which was initially negatived. Against which, they filed appeals before the first respondent herein with applications under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing thereof. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioners was that having regard to the fact that possession is









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