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

1970 Supreme(AP) 58

VENKATESAM, SHARFUDDIN AHMED, A.L.VAIDYA
Dontireddy Venkata Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Bhimavarapu Bhushireddy – Respondent


VAIDYA, J.

( 1 ) THE case has been referred to us by a Bench of this Court as in its opinion the question raised in Writ Appeal No. 98 of 1967 and L. P. A. No. 116 of 1967 involve intricate questions relating to the s open of jurisdiction of Tahsildar under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act. It was also pointed that there are certain observations in the judgment in Gorla Buchaiah v. Mukala Swami Naidu, (1962), 1 Andh WR 10 which require close scrutiny in the light of the Supreme Courts decision placed before them.

( 2 ) THE facts relating to Writ Appeal No. 98 of 1967 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 116 of 1967 may briefly be stated. One Dontireddy Venkata Reddy filed an application A. T. P. 38 of 1968 before the Deputy Tahsildar, Vijayawada u/s. 13 (a) and (c) of the Andhra Tenancy At XVIII of 1966 (hereinafter called the Act) for termination of tenancy against his cultivating tenant Bushireddy and others. The allegation was that the petitioners family owned about 30 acres of lonka land described in detail in the schedule in the village Chagantipadu which is situated about two miles from the schedule lands. In June 1957 Bushireddy, the 1st respondent, in the petition took






































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