Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao, J
B.V.Subba Rao(died) – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Andhra Pradesh Industries – Respondent
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Memo No. 12173/M.II(1)/2007-2, dated 17.02.2009 and pass such other orders....”
2. This Court vide order dated 13.03.2009, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim suspension as prayer for. However, the same shall be subject to the result of O.S No.26 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.
3. Heard Mr. N. Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the land in Sy.No.118 of R.L.Puram, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District to an extent of Ac. 26.16 cents is the subject of the matter of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1932 in between the family members of the original pattadars, which was ended by way of compromise and final decree was passed on 25.09.1940 by the District Musif Court, Ongole. One Ms. Adilaxmamma and others have executed General Power of Attorney (in short GPA) da
The court emphasized that title disputes must be resolved before granting quarry leases, and prior court directions must be adhered to in administrative decisions.
The court ruled that ownership disputes over land must be resolved in civil courts, not through administrative processes, emphasizing the illegality of the quarry lease granted without proper verific....
The court affirmed that the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for quarry lease was valid as the petitioners had no title over the disputed land, emphasizing adherence to established guidelines.
The court established that mining leases cannot be granted without determining compensation and considering the rights of existing cultivators.
The court ruled that claims over estate lands must be substantiated by evidence of continuous occupation before a specified date, and mining leases granted during disputes are valid.
The court held that property ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ proceedings when title questions are contested.
The court upheld the principles of natural justice and declined to interfere at an interlocutory stage in ongoing quasi-judicial proceedings, emphasizing that available remedies remain open for futur....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
