Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Section 15 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chenchu Rami Reddy & Anr vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 1 April, 1986
18. I have already held that after publication of the impugned notice, the petitioner submitted objections claiming benefit under Section 15 of the Tenancy Act. Even before the same could be considered, the petitioner approached this Court. Further, when the matter is pending before the civil court as well as this Court, he gave a representation dated 3-9-2002 to the first respondent expressing his willingness to purchase the land for market value. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that the impugned notice is contrary to law cannot be accepted. What all now the petitioner contends that he is in possession of the land allegedly under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and the land should be sold to him at market value. He is not claiming any right under Section 82 of the Endowment Act or benefit under Section 15 of the Tenancy Act. As held by the Supreme Court in Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of A.P. (supra), when a person is willing to buy the temple land at market value, why he should feel shy to participate in the public auction. In any view of the matter, it is for the Commissioner to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to claim right as a landless poor person under Section 82(2) of the Endowment Act and it is for the Government to consider his request to purchase the land for market value.
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Nallamilli Rami Reddi & Ors on 29 August, 2001
17. When a statutory authority is acting in accordance with law, no mandamus can be issued declaring such action invalid. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy (supra), it is a matter for the authorities to consider whether or not a person in occupation of the land is entitled to the benefit under Section 82(2) of the Endowment Act. Indeed, the petitioner, in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, in A.T.C. No. 1 of 1990, in O.A. No. 3 of 2000 before the Deputy Commissioner, and in O.S. No. 43 of 2002 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, and even in his latest application dated 3-9-2002, admits that he is not in possession of Acs.3.79 cents. The impugned notification was issued prescribing the land as wet land, in which event the petitioner would not fall within the definition of landless poor person as per explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Endowment Act. The contention of the respondents that it is a wet land is not specifically denied in any of the pleadings. However, across the Bar, an effort is made to show that it is a dry land and not wet land and in the alternative, it was submitted that most of the land has been encroached by others and the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring less than Acs.2.50 cents. Going by the pleadings of the petitioner before various courts and various authorities including his latest representation dated 3-9-2002, prima facie, it must be held that the petitioner is in possession of land admeasuring Acs.3.79 cents in Sy.Nos.247/4, 247/6 and 248/2 of Govindapalem in Puttur town which is a wet land. He is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit under Section 82(1) of the Endowment Act.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Modern Educational Society vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 19 December, 2001
20. Before concluding this judgment, this Court must comment on the conduct on the petitioner. He never raised any objection as to the nature of the land as to whether it is wet land or dry land. Having realised that he would not come within the definition of landless poor person as per the explanation to Section 82(2) of the Endowment Act, he came forward with the plea that it is dry land which is belied by various admissions made by him before various authorities as noticed hereinabove. On the one hand, the petitioner claims to be tenant entitled to the benefit under Section 82(2) of the Endowment Act and on the other he offers to purchase the land for market value. It is also alleged that he has sublet the land to others. The conduct of the petitioner who is trying to aprobate and reprobate must also disentitle him to the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that exercise of extraordinary prerogative power under Article 226 being discretionary, the Court can deny the relief to a person who approaches the Court with unclean hands (See Modern Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P., (DB)).