G NARAYANAPPA Vs. GOVT OF A P
LAWS(APH)-1978-4-16
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
April 25,1978
G.NARAYANAPPA
Appellant
VERSUS
GOVT. OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND REFORMS, ANANTAPUR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HANUMANTAMMA VS. RAMI REDDY ILR. [REFERRED TO]SIVADA BALARAMI REDDI VS. SIVADA PERA REDDI AND OTHERS ILR. [REFERRED TO]
CHENCHAMMA VS. SUBBAYYA ILR [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS VS. SUBBAKKA ILR [REFERRED TO]
MALLA REDDI VS. PADMAMMA ILR [REFERRED TO]
VANKAYALATTI VENKATACHALAM VS. BEGAUDLA BUTCHANNA [REFERRED TO]
PEECHU RAMIAH VS. THE GOVT. OF A.P. [REFERRED TO]
BASIREDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VENKATAPPADU VS. ATCHAYAMMA [REFERRED TO]
CHALLA PAPI REDDI VS. CHALLA KOTI REDDI [REFERRED TO]
THIPPANNA VS. VENKATA RAMANAPPA [REFERRED TO]
GADIYAM NARAYUDU VS. MALLAVARAPU VENKAMMA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMMA VS. VENKATASUBBAYYA [REFERRED TO]
EMI SOORAMMA VS. YARABATI VAPARALU [REFERRED TO]
NARASAYYA VS. RAMACHANDRAYYA [REFERRED TO]
MUTHALA VS. SANKARAPPA [REFERRED TO]
NAGI REDDI VS. NANJUNDAPPA [REFERRED TO]
SUBBA RAO VS. MAHALAKSHMAMMA [REFERRED TO]
P LAKSHMI REDDY VS. L LAKSHMI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
Pathuri Venkateswarlu being minor VS. Damacharla China Raghavulu [REFERRED TO]
(VYTLA) SITANNA VS. MARIVADA VIRANNA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BALAMREDDY RAMI REDDY VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND REFORMS ONGOLE [LAWS(APH)-1980-2-17] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is a petition filed under Sec. 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) to revise the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur, confirming the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur holding that the first petitioner G.Narayanappa, was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act and that the second petitioner M.Pedda Venkatappa, was holding Ac.24-65 cents of'J' Class of dry land equivalent to 0.4109 standard holdings'in excess of the ceiling area which he was liable to surrender to the Government under Sec. 9 of the Act.
(2.)The main question that fell for consideration before the Tribunals and that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the first petitioner G. Narayanappa, is the illatom son in-law of the second petitioner M. Pedda Venkatappa, and whether the first petitioner would be entitled to a half share in the lands declared by the second petitioner.
(3.)Both the Tribunals below held that the first petitioner is the illatom son-in-law but negatived his claim for a half share in the lands of the second petitioner, during the letter's life time.
(2.)The main question that fell for consideration before the Tribunals and that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the first petitioner G. Narayanappa, is the illatom son in-law of the second petitioner M. Pedda Venkatappa, and whether the first petitioner would be entitled to a half share in the lands declared by the second petitioner.
(3.)Both the Tribunals below held that the first petitioner is the illatom son-in-law but negatived his claim for a half share in the lands of the second petitioner, during the letter's life time.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.