Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)
T.P.M. Chowdeswara Rao vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Orvakal ... on 5 March, 2002 cites

Dharma Reddy vs Sub-Collector, Bodhan And Ors. on 27 November, 1986

7. Sri V. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the same principle should necessarily apply to all the purchases made subsequent to the coming into force of the Act where the possession is more than 30 years. The submission cannot be countenanced in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in Dharma Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, 1987 (1) ALT 124, where this Court considered the question as to whether the Act is prospective or retrospective. Be it noted, the Full Bench categorically held that the Act not only seeks to protect the assignees but also prohibits transfer of the assigned land on or after commencing of the Act and is retrospective in operation which will apply to all the transfers of assigned lands prior to coming into force of the Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Mandlappa @ Mandla Giriappa vs Mandal Revenue Officer And Anr. on 20 August, 1996

In Mandlappa's case (supra) the father of the petitioner had purchased the land under Registered sale deed dated 13-9-1944 and was in possession of the land by the time the Act came into force on 21-1-1977 reason of Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Act. However, the Joint Collector issued a show-cause notice on 6-10-1998 as to why the assignment in favour of the original assignee should not be cancelled for violating the conditions of patta namely in bringing the land under cultivation within three years from the date of assignment. The petitioner before the Court submitted an explanation that his father purchased the property in good faith for valuable consideration from the original assignee as the land was adjacent to his land. The Joint Collector passed orders of eviction on 19-5-1989. The order passed by the Joint Collector was challenged when the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated proceedings to assign the same land to third parties. The question urged before the Court was that the Joint Collector has no jurisdiction to initiate resumption proceedings under the Act. This found favour with the Division Bench, which accordingly held that the Joint Collector has no jurisdiction either under the Board Standing Orders or under the Act to initiate action for resumption of the land. It was also contended before the Court that by the date of commencement of the Act, the petitioner had perfected the title being in possession for more than 30 years and the Government has no power to take over the land.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1