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

1979 Supreme(AP) 177

A.SEETHARAM REDDY, C.KONDAIAH
C. V. Narayan Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Katanguru Raghava Reddy – Respondent


( 1 ) IN this batch of four Civil Revision petitions common questions of law which are not only important but rather complex, do arise. This complexity is reinforced by the fact that varied views have been expressed in a catena of decisions by this Court, which apparently seemed to be conflicting and one is likely to be led into a labyrinth. No wonder our learned brother Jayachandra Reddy, J. despite the fact that he being a party to one of the Division Bench Judgments in M. Pocham V. Agent to the State Government, Adilabad, (AIR 1978 Andh Pra 242) wherein in some respects the points raised not being quite dissimilar to the one raised herein, felt and very rightly so in our view that points raised in this batch may be decided by a Division Bench and therefore has chosen to refer the matter to a Division Bench.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are the revision petitioners who are holding agricultural lands, were required to declare their holdings for determination as to whether they have any surplus land within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act ). The petitioners, being the owners of certai






























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