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

2000 Supreme(AP) 42

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, GHULAM MOHAMMED
Chintalapati Ramalinga Raju - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Eluru, W.G.District - Respondent
Decided On : 01-25-00

Headnote:

A. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 - Writ Appeal - land case - Transfer - Writ appeal arises against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W. P. - Held, 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 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 by the learned government Pleader, Social Welfare that there is no review provision in the A. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer regulations, 1959 - In fact, that legal position is well settled by series of judgments of this court - Writ Appeal allowed

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 by the learned government Pleader, Social Welfare that there is no review provfsion in the A. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer regulations, 1959. In fact, that legal position is well settled by series of judgments of this court.

( 3 ) IN the circumstances, it is held that such of the survey numbers and equivalent r. S. numbers which are covered by the judgment dated 5-9-1981 passed by the special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, eluru in S. R. Nos. 32/81 to 56/81 shall not be subject matters for initiation of proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Regulations.

( 4 ) THE Writ Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

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 Back to top