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

2013 Supreme(AP) 727

G.ROHINI, CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Pittala Lachavva – Appellant
Versus
Deddeti Venkataiah – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:M. Rajamalla Reddy, Advocate.

Judgment :

1. The matter is listed before us for orders on the following objections raised by the office:

1) Please mention correct provision of law in the grounds copy and wherever necessary.

2) Please pay the deficient court fee, if any.

3) Please clarify and state as to how this appeal is entertainable under Section 54 of LA Act against decree and Judgment dated 22.04.2013 in LAOP No.35 of 2010 in view of judgment of Division Bench i.e. 2006(3) ALD 199(DB).

2. The said LAOP was filed under Section 30 of LA Act.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirsilla in LAOP No.35 of 2010 on a reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in view of the dispute between the claimants i.e., the appellant and the respondents 1& 2 herein as to the title of the land acquired.

4. Though the value of the appeal is shown as Rs.18,98,700/- i.e., the value of the land acquired, the appellant paid a fixed court fee of Rs.300/-.

5. Therefore the above noticed objections are raised by the off






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