Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Madireddy Santosh vs The Joint Collector on 25 March, 2025 cites

Sada And Etc. Etc. vs The Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad ... on 24 September, 1987

13. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that these revision petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, contending that without deciding the issues, the matters were remanded to the RDO. On perusing the impugned common order passed by the Joint Collector, it is seen that the procedure contemplated under the Act, has not been followed while issuing 38(E) Certificate. Further, in the order dated 03.02.1984 passed by the RDO, it is clear that an application was filed by Koheda villagers for correction of 11 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch final record of tenancy and patta certificate was issued under Section 38(E) of the Act. However, it is not known as to who has filed the application for correction of tenancy records, and under what authority of law. Further, in the said order it was held that as per the guidelines issued by the Collector, the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, has conducted local enquiry and prepared the tenancy register as per physical possession of the PTs. No objections were received on the register prepared by the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar. Hence, it was observed that the record prepared by the Tahsildar showing the survey number and extent on which they had possession was accepted in to. Therefore, the tenancy records were corrected under Rule 3(2) of the Rules 1956, and a finding was given that tenancy record was changed based on some guidelines issued by the Collector, and record prepared by the Tahsildar, as per the possessions and no mention was made as to the names that have been corrected. Reliance was placed in the order dated 02.05.2018 passed by this Court in CRP.Nos.1552 of 2015 and batch, whereunder, it was observed that once the 12 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch original PT register entries are clear, there could be no change as held in Sada Vs. Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad 3.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 25 - Cited by 37 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Kurva Mallamma And Another vs Kupireddy Sasthri on 12 December, 2000

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.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - G Raghuram - Full Document
1