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

2005 Supreme(AP) 1024

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
NARSIMULU ARID – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MEDAK – Respondent


( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioners pray for quashing of notification under Section 4 dated 10. 4. 2003 and other consequential proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended by Act XXXVIII of 1923 insofar as they relate to Sy. No. 335 of zaheerabad village and Mandal, Medak as violative of mandatory provisions of Land acquisition Act and objects of A. P. Boodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 and Rules made there under.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners in brief is : 4th respondent-Secretary, A. P. Boodan yagna Board, Hyderabad allotted Ac. 5-00 cents each to the petitioners in S. No. 335 of zaheerbad after collecting Rs. 1,750/- each. The petitioners made the land fit for cultivation by putting their hard work and labour. 4th respondent addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of pattas in prescribed form in favour of the petitioners as required under Rule 9 of a. P. Boodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rules ). The government of Andhra Pradesh through memo dated 25. 2. 1983 issued instructions to the revenue authorities to issue D-Form pattas as per the allotment made by 4th respondent. 3rd respondent-A. P. In























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