Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (2.48 seconds)
Documents citing P.S. Rao vs Special Officer And Competent ... on 22 July, 1998

Parchuri Ratnakar Rao vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 27 June, 2006

In the common order in W.P. No. 17759 of 2005 and Batch dated 9.9.2005 also, the learned Single Judge firstly held any purchaser of such land after the Act to be not a holder of the land within the meaning of Section 2(1) and secondly noted that in Nalla Yakoob's case (supra) and P.S.Rao's case (supra), the original holders of the land sought relief from the Court under G.O. Ms. No. 733. The learned Single Judge observed that G.O. Ms. No733 indicates that the holder of such land desiring to convert it into land for non-agricultural purpose is required for exemption. Therefore, if the holder of the land by 31.10.1988, the date of G.O.Ms.No. 733, has no intention for such conversion, the applicability of the exemption thereunder becomes doubtful, apart from the question whether a purchaser subsequent to G.O.Ms.No. 733 can claim to be a holder of such land.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... vs M. Krishnaveni on 18 November, 1999

As per the decision of this Court in P.S. Rao's case (supra) and in WA No. 1696 of 1998, dated 8-9-1999 they have retrospective effect provided the proceedings in respect of the holding are not completed under Chapter III of the 1976 Act. Allotment of shares to the daughters at the time of their marriage towards 'Pasupu Kumkuma' has been recognised in the Stale. Even no partition was taken into consideration, the daughters would have been entitled for a separate share of Ac.8.33 gunias each. This has been further made clear by the Government of India in their circular dated 21-5-1997 informing the concerned that the married daughters are also entitled for their share in the property. Thus they are entitled for an independent holding. The said circular also made clear that in case of delay in filing the declarations, the same to be viewed liberally. The object for issuing such a circular is to see that the women shall not be deprived of their legitimate right to have a separate holding. Therefore, a right shall not be deprived of on technicalities.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A S Bhate - Full Document

Anne Ramachandra Rao vs Government Of A.P. And Others on 22 June, 2000

(2) In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Darothi Clare Parreira case (supra) and in P.S. Rao case (supra) an application for exemption could be made only after determination of the excess land and vesting of the same in the State under Section 10. This determination was made by the notification under Section 10(3) of the Act dated 1-5-1981 which was published in the gazette on 5-3-1981.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - G Raghuram - Full Document

Kallem Srinivasa Reddy And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 2 April, 2007

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Nalla Yakoob v. The Govt. of A.P. , P.S. Rao v. The Special Officer and Competent Authority and a decision of the Supreme Court in Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings v. P.S. Rao in support of the contention that when once the land falls within the peripheral area without there being any further orders, the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 stands exempted as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 733 and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right. Opposing the writ petition learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (ULC) submits that the original owners filed declarations and final orders as well as notifications under Section 10 were already issued and at that stage petitioners preferred review petition under Section 34 of the Act. As the original owners sold away the land to the GPAs after the land was declared as surplus, G.O.Ms. No. 733 has no application to the facts of the case. Inviting the attention of the Court to the revision petition filed by the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that all the proceedings under the Act have attained finality and, therefore, the alienation of excess vacant land made by the original owners is void.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

T.Muralidhar Rao And Another vs Counsel For The on 23 February, 2017

The facts in that case are set out in the decision of the single Judge of this court in P.S.Rao v. Special officer and Competent Authority, Urban land ceiling and it clear that there was no sale by the petitioner P.S.Rao in that case and he only pleaded exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 and alleged that proceedings under Sec.10 (5) initiated against him are liable to be quashed. In that case, even prior to the coming into operation of G.O.Ms.No.733, vesting under sec.10 (3) had taken place and the Court was considering the question whether after such vesting also, the owner can seek exemption from the provisions of the Act. So it cannot be construed that use of the words owner of the land by the Supreme Court in its order meant that only owner of land/declarant can seek benefit under the G.O.Ms.No.733 and not purchaser from him.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - M S Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next