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

2024 Supreme(AP) 437

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N.
Inakoti Prasada Rao – Appellant
Versus
Pydi Srinu Srinivasarao – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Vijaya Vardhan.
For the Respondents: Taddi Nageswara Rao.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) :

As all the Writ Appeals arise out of similar orders of a learned Single Judge, dated 23.09.2022, 26.09.2022 and 27.09.2022 and raise the same questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. The parties to these Writ Appeals are being referred to as they arrayed in W.A.No.943 of 2022.

2. The private respondents, in these Writ appeals, had approached this court by way W.P. No. 29987 of 2022, W.P. No. 29974 of 2022, W.P. No. 29994 of 2022, contending that the 6th respondent- Tahsildar, without notice or opportunity being given to the private respondents, had marked, in orange and red, the adangal record, maintained online, in relation to their lands in Sy.No.165-2 and Sy.No.165-4 of Kopperla Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and included them in the dispute register and the said action was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Rules, 1989.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, at the stage of admission had disposed of these writ petitions, following an earlier order of this Court, dated 24

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