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

2000 Supreme(AP) 432

V.ESWARAIAH
Madakam Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Subordinate Judge – Respondent


V. ESWARAIAH, J.

( 1 ) ). HEARD the respective contentions submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents and also the Standing Counsel for the High court and Government Pleader for Home. Srr A. Rangacharyulu, learned Counsel also assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae. 1. In these two Writ Petitions and all the civil Revision Petitions the only question that arises for consideration is whether the concerned Civil Courts of the Junior Civil judges and Senior Civil Judges of kothagudem and Sattupalli have jurisdiction in the matters of which the cause of action wholly arose in the scheduled areas.

( 2 ) THE brief facts in these two Writ petitions are that the petitioners are the owners of the small extents of agricultural lands in the scheduled area of bhadrachalam Division i. e. , agency area and they are Scheduled Tribes and their lands were acquired for the purpose of excavation of canal of "taliperru Reservoir project" and the Land Acquisition Officer Special deputy Collector (LA) I. T. P. and railways, Khammam, has conducted award proceedings and paid the compensation to the petitioners and all the petitioners having dissatisfied with the determination
















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