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

1997 Supreme(AP) 381

LINGARAJA RATH, T.N.C.RANGA RAJAN
Mukka Narasimha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A. P. , Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept. – Respondent


LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THE question urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is the non-maintainability of revision before the Government in the matter of bifurcation of a Gram Panchayat at the instance of a private person. Vaddimadugu gram Panchayat was sought to be bifurcated but in view of the unanimous resolution of the gram Panchayat opposing it, the Collector, prakasam District decided against it. A revision before the Government was carried by one G. Raghurami Reddy which was allowed. Writ Petition No. 11430 of 1995, filed assailing the revisional order was allowed on 18-12-1995 directing the Government to give notice to the Gram Panchayat before passing order on the revision petition. The government, after issue of notice to the Gram panchayat, again confirmed the bifurcation, challenging which the present writ petition has been filed. The revision petitioner having not been made a party, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead him as the 4th Respondent.

( 2 ) IT is urged before us by the learned counsel that under Rule 10 of the A. P. Gram panchayat (Declaration of Village) Rules, 1994 and the G. O. Ms. No. 515, Panchayat Raj, rural Develop








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