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

2000 Supreme(AP) 42

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, GHULAM MOHAMMED
Chintalapati Ramalinga Raju – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Eluru, W. G. District – Respondent


B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal arises against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W. P. No. 20544 of 1999 dated 11-10-1999.

( 2 ) THE matter arises under the provisions of the A. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer regulations, 1959 (for short the regulations ). The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the apprehension of the petitioner may not be real. But, it is evident from the proceedings dated 4-11-1998 in Rc. No. 230 of 1997 (Supt.) of the Mandal Revenue officer, Buttaigudem mandal addressed to the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal welfare, K. R. Puram that action was sought to be taken against the petitioner on the ground that the judgment rendered by the special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare hitherto dated 5-9-1981 is doubtful. But, it is a well settled law that when a judgment is rendered under the Regulations, it becomes final and there is no review of the same. It is not disputed that the order dated 5-9-1981 rejecting the application for eviction of the petitioner-appellant herein on the ground that unauthorised possession was rejected and the said order had become final. It is also not disputed



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