KODUMORI VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. JASTI VENKATESWARA RAO
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Kodumori Venkateswara Rao
Jasti Venkateswara Rao
Referred Judgements :-
R. V. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS
OXFORD AND DARSHA ASSOCIATION FARMERS V. LIEWELLIN
BARNARD V. NATIONAL DOCK LABOUR BOARD
ISMAIL PATEL V. ZAHRA BIBI
ROSE CLUNIS V. PUPADOPOULLOS
TEFFS V. NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING BOARD
EMPERER V. SIBNATH BARTERJI
KING V. HENDERSON
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. DHONDU NARAYAN CHOWDHARY
RACHAPPA VS. CHANDER
Click here to view full judgement.
RAMACHANDARA RAO,J. -
(1.)The petitioner herein has filed this revision against an appellate order of the District Collector, Khammam, reversing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1950.
(2.)Sri P. Shivashankar, contends that under Section 98 of the said Act, the powers of the Collector have been delegated to the Revenue Divisional Officer, pursuant to an order of the Government dated 11th September, 1950 and as amended subsequently and that once the Revenue Divisional officer has exercised the power under Section 98 of the Act, it is not open to the Collector to entertain an appeal against the said order under Section 90 of the said Act. Consequently the appeal filed by the respondent before the District Collector, was not maintainable. I feel that this is a matter of considerable importance and it is advisable that it should be authoritatively decided by a Bench. The papers may therefore be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for obtaining appropriate directions for posting before a Bench.JUDGEMENT
(3.)Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. - This revision petition directed against an order of the District Collector, Khammam given on 12-9-1967 whereby he allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, hereinafter called "?the Act "?. The material facts. In order to appreciate the contention raised before us may briefly be stated. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 98 read with Section 47 of the Act for eviction of the respondents alleging inter alia that the petitioner is the pattadar of S. No. 531 measuring 2 acres and 3 gun' as and S. No. 532 measuring 3 acres and 2 guntas. The 1st respondent cultivated the said lands in the year 1952 and illegally with the collusion of the patwari got the entry in the village pahani as 'Kharidi" in column No. 15. The 1st respondent landholder sold the suit land to one Vellanka Chalapathi Rao in 1954. 3. It is further alleged that the 1st and 2nd respondents in collusion with the patwari removed the name of the petitioner in the Khaira Pahani and got inserted the name of the 2nd respondent in column 13 of the Khasra Pahani. It is contended that these enterics are illegal as there was no sale transaction between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It is contended that respondents 1 and 2 have been in illegal possession of the land belonging to the petitioner and they are holding the same unauthorisedly. For a few years respondents 3, 4 and 6 were also in occupation of the land illegally. It was thus contended that the occupation of all the respondents of the said land is illegal and unauthorised. It is in these circumstance that the petitioner prayed that the respondents should be Summarily ejected and the petitioner put in possession of the suit lands.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.