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

1993 Supreme(AP) 194

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
Government Of A. P. , Chief Secretary, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Sathaiah – Respondent


P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE short, but important question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of certain land, situated within the urban Agglomeration as defined in Clause n of Section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in view of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called as the Act ) when an issue relating to Land Grabbing arises out of pleadings?

( 2 ) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 460 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for deciaration and for possession of the suit land, measuring 3636 Sq. Yards, together with profits againstthe petitioners. The suit was admittedly filed in April, 1984 i. e. , long after Act 12 of 1982 came into force i. e. , on 29-6-1982. The petitioners who are (1) The Government of andhra Pradesh (2) The Collector, Hyderabad District and (3) The Chairman, hyderabad Urban Development Authority, are contesting the suit. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have filed separate written statements contending that the plaint schedule


























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