THANDRALA NARSAIAH Vs. PASTAPURAPU BHADRAIAH
LAWS(APH)-1971-2-32
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 25,1971

THANDRALA NARSAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
PASTAPURAPU BHADRAIAH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

QUEEN V. COMMISSIONERS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED TO]
FARMER V. COTTONS TRUSTEES [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS V. HEAD [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,FULHAM ETC.,RENT TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
BEAN V. DONCASTER AMALGAMATED COLLIERIES [REFERRED TO]
REGINA V. LEWES JUSTICES [REFERRED TO]
IVEAGH (EARL OF) V. MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL [REFERRED TO]
REGINA V. GOVERNOR OF BRIXTON PRISON,EX PARTE,SOBLEN [REFERRED TO]
IVEAGH (EARL OF) V. MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [REFERRED TO]
ASHBRIDGE INVESTMENTS LTD. V. MINISTER [REFERRED TO]
MARADANA MOSQUE TRUSTEES V. MAHMUD [REFERRED TO]
REG. V. GOVERNOR OF BROXTON PRISON,ARMAH,EX- PARTE [REFERRED TO]
MUTHU GOUNDER V. GOVT. OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA DAS BHATIA VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
RAM MANOHAR LOHIA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BARIUM CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. COMPANY LAW BOARD [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL JAIN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES VS. S D AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
RASHBIHARI PANDA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
A NATESA ASARI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
PERIATHAMBI MUDALIAR VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L A PLANNING SCHEME COIMBATORE AND [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

K NOORUDDIN VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2009-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
JANYAVULA VENKATA SUBBA RAO VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2009-11-15] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. - (1.)The following question has been referred to the Full Bench by our learned brothers Narasimham and Parthasarathi, JJ., by their order of reference dated 26/10/1970.
"Whether a notification made under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition act dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A on the ground of urgency is subject to review under article 226 on grounds other than mala fides or the arbitrary nature of the notification or that it was not made by the appropriate or competent authority ?"

(2.)The facts which are said to give rise to the said question may be briefly stated. Respondents 1 to 6 filed W.P.No.1223 of 1966 for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the Memo No. 317-R-1/66-3, Education, dated 11/04/1966. It was alleged inter alia that petitioners 1 and 2 are the pattadars of S. Nos. 2/A admeasuring 0.22 guntas and 2/B admeasuring Ac. 1.20 guntas respectively. Petitioners 3 to 6 are alienees from petitioners 1 and 2 claiming themselves to be occupants as well as tenants.
(3.)The Government , they allege, intended to acquire S. No. 8 admeasuring Ac. 4-20 guntas, which is contiguous to Harijan locality and which satisfied the requirements of the needy Harijans. Sri P.Krishna Rao, Patwari, Pattadar of S. No. 8 by dint of his influence swerved the acquisition proceedings from S.No. 8 to S.No. 5, S.No. 5 because of effective steps taken by its pattadars could not be acquired. Consequently S. Nos. 2/A and 2/B are being acquired.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.