Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Kotipalli Chitti vs Special Deputy Collector, Land ... on 24 January, 1997

District Collector And Ors. vs P. Nagabhushana Rao And Ors. on 19 September, 2003

In Kotipalli Chitti v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), , another learned Single Judge relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh 's case and proceeded to hold that even in the absence of an express protest at the time of receiving compensation, a person interested will be entitled to maintain a reference under Section 18(1) of the Act since reference had been sought immediately after receiving the amount under receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, It was held that an application filed by claimant for reference itself would manifest the intention of the claimants to accept the amount under protest.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

N. Sangaiah And Others vs Special Deputy Collector, Land ... on 22 July, 1999

In Kotipalli Chilli v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), , another learned single Judge of this Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh's case (supra) held that a reference under Section 18 is maintainable even in the absence of express protest at the time of receiving compensation. In the said case, the petitioner appears to have filed an application under Section 18 of the Act immediately after receiving the amount and a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Under those circumstances, this Court held that an application filed by the claimant for reference under Section 18 of the Act, itself, would manifest the intention of the claimants to accept the amounts under protest. It was a subsequent application filed by the claimant conveying implied protest.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Bukka Gangi Naik vs State Of A.P. And Others on 6 July, 2001

In Kotipalli Chitti v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), , another learned single Judge of this Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh's case (supra) held that a reference under Section 18 is maintainable even in the absence of express protest at the time of receiving compensation. In the said, case, the petitioner, appears to have filed an application under Section 18 of the Act immediately after receiving the amount and a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Under those circumstances, this Court held that an application filed by the claimant for reference under Section 18 Act, itself would manifest the intention of the claimants to accept the amounts under protest. It was a subsequent application filed by the claimant conveying implied protest.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1