Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Aduru Badarinath – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of estate claims (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners' claims and opposition (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's view on public interest (Para 17) |
| 4. failure to prove occupation (Para 18) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petitions (Para 19) |
ORDER :
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.18094 of 2023 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is one of the family member of Aduru Estate holders. Some of the members of Aduru family filed a suit for partition of the schedule lands (estate lands) on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nellore and a preliminary decree was passed on 19.12.1951. After the Estate Abolition Act , 1956 came in to force, the petitioners family members filed claims before the 4th respondent and the said claim petitions were ordered. Aggrieved by the same, an Appeal No. 27 of 1970 was filed before Estate Abolition Appellate Tr
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.
writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative and efficacious relief is available to the petitioner under Rule 35/35-A of the APMMC Rules, 2016.
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.
A person aggrieved by the order granting mining lease can challenge the same before the appropriate authority of the Central Government. The petitioner-Society did not avail the alternative efficacio....
The court upheld that parties lacking legitimate claims or authority cannot disrupt lawful mining operations, affirming pre-existing rights granted under legislated provisions.
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
