Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (4.57 seconds)
Documents citing Kurva Mallamma And Another vs Kupireddy Sasthri on 12 December, 2000

Bhanya Somaiah Died As Per Lrs vs The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, on 30 November, 2018

Therefore, the order under challenge is not final order, which would not terminate or culminate the entire proceedings as the dispute was remanded to the R.D.O. for fresh consideration for passing an 17 order in accordance with law by the R.D.O. Applying the principles laid down in the above judgments, I am of the view that the order under challenge, if upheld, it would not terminate the proceedings and my view is fortified by the judgment of this Court (referred supra) under the same Act and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, also appeared in "Kurva Mallamma v. Kupireddy Sasthri" (referred supra) in one of the cases, and was unsuccessful before this Court.
Telangana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Suryadeva Hemalatha, And 2 Others vs State Of Telangana, And 29 Others on 25 March, 2025

In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs Yedla Chellaiah 1, and in the case of Kurva Mallamma and another vs Kupireddy Shastri 2, wherein, it was held that a revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1984 which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them. He reiterated that the petitioners cannot re-urge the issues that have been decided and became final in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly contended that even assuming that an error was crept in, 1 1960 (1) ALT P 191 2 2001 (1) ALD P 382 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch while rendering findings contrary to the record, the same cannot be rectified in this revision, as the said findings have become final, and that a party cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against them.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madireddy Santosh And 53 Others vs The Joint Collector And 47 Others on 25 March, 2025

In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs Yedla Chellaiah 1, and in the case of Kurva Mallamma and another vs Kupireddy Shastri 2, wherein, it was held that a revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1984 which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them. He reiterated that the petitioners cannot re-urge the issues that have been decided and became final in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly contended that even assuming that an error was crept in, 1 1960 (1) ALT P 191 2 2001 (1) ALD P 382 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch while rendering findings contrary to the record, the same cannot be rectified in this revision, as the said findings have become final, and that a party cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against them.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madireddy Santosh vs The Joint Collector on 25 March, 2025

In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs Yedla Chellaiah 1, and in the case of Kurva Mallamma and another vs Kupireddy Shastri 2, wherein, it was held that a revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1984 which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them. He reiterated that the petitioners cannot re-urge the issues that have been decided and became final in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly contended that even assuming that an error was crept in, 1 1960 (1) ALT P 191 2 2001 (1) ALD P 382 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch while rendering findings contrary to the record, the same cannot be rectified in this revision, as the said findings have become final, and that a party cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against them.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madireddy Santosh And 51 Others vs The Joint Collector And 47 Others on 25 March, 2025

In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs Yedla Chellaiah 1, and in the case of Kurva Mallamma and another vs Kupireddy Shastri 2, wherein, it was held that a revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1984 which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them. He reiterated that the petitioners cannot re-urge the issues that have been decided and became final in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly contended that even assuming that an error was crept in, 1 1960 (1) ALT P 191 2 2001 (1) ALD P 382 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch while rendering findings contrary to the record, the same cannot be rectified in this revision, as the said findings have become final, and that a party cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against them.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madireddy Santosh vs The Joint Collector on 25 March, 2025

In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs Yedla Chellaiah 1, and in the case of Kurva Mallamma and another vs Kupireddy Shastri 2, wherein, it was held that a revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1984 which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them. He reiterated that the petitioners cannot re-urge the issues that have been decided and became final in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly contended that even assuming that an error was crept in, 1 1960 (1) ALT P 191 2 2001 (1) ALD P 382 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch while rendering findings contrary to the record, the same cannot be rectified in this revision, as the said findings have become final, and that a party cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against them.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madireddy Santosh vs The Joint Collector on 25 March, 2025

In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs Yedla Chellaiah 1, and in the case of Kurva Mallamma and another vs Kupireddy Shastri 2, wherein, it was held that a revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1984 which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them. He reiterated that the petitioners cannot re-urge the issues that have been decided and became final in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly contended that even assuming that an error was crept in, 1 1960 (1) ALT P 191 2 2001 (1) ALD P 382 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch while rendering findings contrary to the record, the same cannot be rectified in this revision, as the said findings have become final, and that a party cannot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been finally decided against them.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1