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

1996 Supreme(AP) 767

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, V.BHASKARA RAO
Nimmagadda Rama Devi – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Krishna – Respondent


T. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are filed assailing the order of the Mandal Revenue of ficer-2nd respondent herein cancelling the assignment of the petitioners and resuming the lands under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No. IX of 1977 ).

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the lands in their possession were originally assigned to the assignees on payment of market value and granted d form pattas to the assignees. Thereafter the assignees sold their lands to the third parties including (that of) the present petitioners. The M. R. O. , 2nd respondent herein noticing that the lands were transferred by the original assignees in favour of the petitioners, issued a show-cause notice stating why the assignments should not be cancelled as the assignees have violated the provisions of Section 3 of Act IX of 1977. It is the case of the petitioners that the assignees have purchased theland from the Government on payment of market value who in turn sold their lands to the petitioners on payment of market value only. Further, it is their case that the note appended to Condition No. l in d form patta postulates that non-alienat








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