J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Yerikala Sunkalamma – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
| INDEX | |
| FACTUAL AVERMENTS | |
| IMPUGNED JUDGMENT | |
| SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS | |
| SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS | |
| ANALYSIS | |
| (i) The Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971 | |
| (ii) The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 | |
| (iii) Oral Evidence on record | |
| (iv) Section 113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | |
| (v) How is the Court expected to consider title suits against the Government | |
| (vi) Section 80 of CPC | |
| (vii) Object of Notice in Government Suits | |
| (viii) Essentials of Section 80 CPC | |
| (ix) Payment of compensation in cases of resumption of land | |
| CONCLUSION | |
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 10.07.2014 in AS No. 1931 0f 2002 by which the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by the Respondents (original defendants) and thereby set aside the judgment and decree dated
Chittoor District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Milk Products Factory vs. C. Rajamma
K.M. Kamallula Basha vs. District Collector, Chittoor District
Manchegowda vs. State of Karnataka
Dharma Reddy vs. Sub-Collector, Bodhan and Others
R. Hanumaiah vs. State of Karnataka
Jagannath Shivnarayan vs. Municipal Commissioner, City Municipality, Indore
Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund
Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander
Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. vs. Collector
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company
R. Hanumaiah vs. Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka, Revenue Department
R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another
Hornal vs. Neuberger Products Ltd.
Addagada Raghavamma vs. A. Addagada Chenchamma
Bihari Chowdhary and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others
State of Punjab vs. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd.
Bhagchand Dagadusa vs. Secretary of State
Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs. Union of India
Nani Amma Nannini Amma vs. State of Kerala
Raghunath Das vs. Union of India and Another
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs. State of Gujarat
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596 [Para 121
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
Murlidhar Dayandeo Keskar vs. Vishwanath Pandu Barde
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.