Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Guthikonda Raghava Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner leased land (Para 2) |
| 2. court's directive on auction (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. rights cannot be revoked (Para 16) |
| 4. writ petition allowed (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the following relief:
“…..to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction (1) declaring G.O.Ms.No.425 Revenue Endowments I Department dated 9.11.2015 making amendments to Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules 2003, as illegal and is in contravention of Section 82 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments 1987 and also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and struck down the said Rules and also 2 declare the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 30.4.2016 rejecting his claim as small farmer as illegal and arbitrary during the subsistence of the Appeal No 6 of 2009 is pending before the 3rd respondent and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue him as lessee of the land situated in Sy No 605/7 admeasuring Ac 4 2
Existing rights of landless poor persons cannot be revoked without clear legislative intent for retrospective application, and principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative actio....
The court ruled that eviction actions must comply with procedural requirements, emphasizing the necessity of notice and adherence to established rules.
The protection granted to landless poor tenants of religious institutions under Section 82(2) and its proviso of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 198....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
The court clarified that continuous possession for six years prior to the Act's commencement is essential for claiming benefits under Section 82 of the Act.
A purchaser under an unregistered sale deed does not acquire any right or interest in the immovable property.
Ownership disputes regarding lands belonging to religious institutions must be resolved through the Endowments Tribunal, making writ petitions under Article 226 inappropriate.
Inaction of authorities in not taking any action on representations made by petitioners for over seven years is illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioners are entitled to a direction from the court t....
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
