Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)
Oruganti Jeethaiah And Another, vs Rev. Dept., Rep. By Prl. Sec. And 2 Ors, on 23 February, 2024
cites
Appropriation of Endowments Rules
Section 2 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shri A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 19 March, 1996
"......A Full Bench of this Court in
S. Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1990 (1) ALT
237, declared that Section 82 of the Endowments Act,
as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In view of uncertainty of the validity of Section 82 of the
Endowments Act in the interregnum, various
proceedings before the authorities created under the
Tenancy Act were continued.
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Nallamilli Rami Reddi & Ors on 29 August, 2001
The said judgment of this
Court has been set aside by the judgment of the
Supreme Court in an appeal by the State in State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy (2001) 7 SCC
708 upholding the legality and validity of Section 82 of
the Endowments Act. By virtue of the aforesaid
Ordinance and the judgment of the Supreme Court
referred to above, all the leases between parties in these
petitions came to an end on the date of commencement
of the Endowments Act and thereafter there is no
landlord and tenancy relationship between the
institution and the cultivator. A Division Bench of this
Court in WP No.28714 of 198, dated 19-2-2002 also
held that the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy
Act, 1956 have no application to the Endowments Act
in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred
supra. Therefore, the proceedings before the authorities
under the Tenancy Act are not maintainable and the
proceedings initiated either by the Institution or by the
cultivator are nonest in law".
E.V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 5 November, 2004
In view of the
same, by applying the test of intelligible differentia, [E.V.Chinnaiah
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (AIR 2005 SC 162) & Deepak
Sibal and Ors. Vs. Punjab University and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 903)],
the classification made by way of the amendment to Section 82 is
reasonable and not arbitrary. As such, the Amendment to Section 82
HCJ (AAJ) & NVSKJ
12 W.P. No.9436 of 2008
has a rationale basis and has a reasonable connection with the
objects of the Act and cannot be said to be discriminatory and in
violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That part, on a
careful analysis to the Explanation-II of Section 82 of the Act, the
amendment would not take away the rights of the petitioners as they
are allowed to continue in lease within the extents specified which the
petitioners are otherwise are eligible.