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

1995 Supreme(AP) 124

B.K.SOMASEKHARA, LINGARAJA RATH
Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
B. Lalita Devi – Respondent


LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THE question that falls for consideration in this appeal is applicability of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, more particularly that of Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. to the proceedings before the Special Court under the A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition Act) 1982 (Act 12 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the act ).

( 2 ) THE facts in nut-shell are that the appellant approached the Special Court under the Act complaining land grabbing by 21 personsof a patch of land to the extent of Ac. 7-22 cents in the city of Vishakaparnam. The case pleaded before the special Court was that the land originally belonged to 21 respondents, respondents 30 to 50 herein, but that it was acquired under the Land Acquisition act, 1894, in the year 1956. In the land acquisition case, the award was duly passed and compensation was paid. Subsequently, respondents 30 to 50 applied for lay outs of the land and paid betterment charges. But the municipality having found the land being acquired by itself filed the Land grabbing Case 99 of 1989. The case is being contested by respondents 30 to 50 before the Special Court contending no acquisition to have been made of the land and po







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