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

1987 Supreme(AP) 89

P.A.CHOUDHARY
MAJJARI PULLANNA – Appellant
Versus
Sub-Collector, Nandyal – Respondent


P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THE State Government has assigned cultivable lands to one Nagamma on the basis that she was a landless poor person. That assignment was subject to a condition of inalienability. Nagamma, however, disregarding the condition of the grant, sold those lands in the year 1943 to one Taveri Naik who was also a landless poor person. Taveri naik in his turn sold those lands to the writ petitioner under a sale deed dt: 3rd of January, 1953. Thus the land, which was originally assigned to nagamma and was forbidden from being alienated, had changed more than once.

( 2 ) THE authorities acting under the provisions of the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) called upon the petitioner under Section 3 of that Act to show cause why the lands he had purchased from Taveri Naik should not be resumed and restored back to Taveri Naik. The petitioner had submitted some explanation. But that he was a landless poor person was never a part of the petitioner s explanation. Rejecting the petitioners explanation, the Tahsildar, by his order dated 8th of September, 1978, directed resumption of the land and restoration of the s


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