1
9085/88 |
1.Ganta Padmaraju
2.Ganta Kamayamma
3.Putika Venkata raju
V/s
1. Dy.Collector (TW) R.Chodavaram
2. Sri. Subrahmanyam.I.AS
Sub-Collector & Dy. Collector(Tribal Welfari),Rampachodararam,E.G.Dist
3. Special Dy. Tahsildar,RajavommangiEadt Godavari Dist.
4.Kakuru Balayya
5.Puttapalli Balayya
6.Jampane Yerrayyamma
7. Natireddy Chinnaiah
8. kakuru Tokkabbai
9. Chundur Buthcaiah
10.Lotha Simhadri
11.Pothuri. Malayya
12.Integrated Tribal Development Agency Rampachodavram,E.G rep. by its Project officer. |
Relief Sought: restraing the first Respondent from proceeding with the L.T.R.P.Nos. 108 to 117 of res-judicata and that the same are initiated by the second exercising illegal jurisdiction .
Relief Granted: "Since the caste status of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the prescribed authority in pursuance of the action already initiated and having regard to the fact that this court while entertaining the writ petition nearly eleven(11) yrs back stayed all further proceedings and that interim stay is still in operation, i think that is appropriate that the 1 st respondent (Depty. Collector Rampachodavaram) prescribed authority under the regulation shall await the decission of the prescribed authority who is empowered to determine caste status of the petitioners and depending upon the determination to take appropriate further action in pursuance of the impugned notice.Respective pleadings filed in this case are kept open to be agitated before the appropriate authority. It is also relavant to place on record that this order is being made with the consent of the learned counsel appearing." |
Filed on 13-6-88
Disposed on
29-10-99
.
Disposed On : 29-Oct-1999 |
2
15168/89
WPMP 1795/95 |
1.Anantha Eswara Rao
2.Smt. Ananta Mangatayaru
3.Ananta Mangaratnam
Vs
• The Joint Collector &Addl . Dist. Magistrate E.G.Dist.
• The M.R.O Addateegala, E.G.Dist
3.SHAKTI |
Relief Granted: "The writ petition is therefore , misconceived for challenging the mere show cause notice. The same is liable to be dismissed .The petitioners shall file their reply to the impugned show cause notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy on this order. The same shall be accepted by respondent No.1 He shall proceed further according to law". |
Disposed on 7.4.98
.
Disposed On : 07-Apr-1998 |
3
15169/89
WPMP 1796/95 |
• Padala Babu Rao
• Smt.Padala Nagarathnam
• Smt. Padala Veerayamma
• Padala Janardhana Rao
• Padala Suryanarayana
• Padala Venkateswara Rao
• Padala Jagga Rao
V/s
• The Joint Collector &Addl . Dist. Magistrate E.G.Dist.
• The M.R.O Addateegala, E.G.Dist
• SHAKTI |
Relief Granted: " The 1 st respondent now shall proceed to conduct enquiry in pursuance to the impugned show-cause notice and complete the inquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date of date of receipt of a copy of this order." |
Disposed on
1-11-99
Remanded to Collector Court , Kakainda
Pending at District Collector court- followed up by M.V.Ramana, Advocate.
Disposed On : 01-Nov-1999 |
6
15337/91 |
1.Ganta Kamayamma
2.Ganta Padma Raju
V/s
1.Agent to Govt.E.G.Kakinada
2.Dep. Collector(T.W) Rampachodavarm
3.M.R.O.Rajavommangi,E.G.
4.Chundru Butchaiah |
Relief Sought: clling for the records relating to C.M.A.No.36/91 on the file of the 1 st respondent and quash the order dt.2-11-91 confirming the order of the 2 nd respondent and consequently direct the respondent to forbear from interfereing with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the schedule Land in L.T.R.No. 56/89 on the file of the 2 nd respondent . |
Filed on 26-11-91.
Pending at District Collector court- followed up by M.V.Ramana, Advocate.
Disposed On : 13-Mar-2002 |
7
W.A.30/93
In
W.p. No.18000/88
W.A.No198/94
In
W.P 5516/91
W.A.No. 187/94
In
W.P. No. 14494/88
W.P.No.19972/96 |
1.SAKTI (Kanigiri case)
2.Yatla Surya Reddy
3.Kogara Kannaiah
Vs
1.Sub-collector, Rampachodavaram, E.G.Dist.
2.Kanigiri Radha Krishna
3.Kanigiri Chakrapani
4. Smt. Kasireddy Anasuya
5.Smt. Damayanthi
• Smt Veeramreddy Satyavani
• Kanigri Murali Mohan
• V. Subhadra
• Joint Collector and Additional Dist. Magistrate, E.G.
1.SAKTI
2.Yetla Surya Reddy
3.Kunjam Jagga Rao
4.Aguri Rama Murthy
Vs
1.The Dist. Collector E.G.Dist.
2.The Sub-Collector, Rampachodavaram
3.The M.R.O. Rajavommangi E.G
4.K.V.V.Subrahmanyam and 21 others.
***
SAKTI Vs
• The Dist. Collector E.G.Dist.
• Kanigiri Arjuna Rao
1.KanigiriMurali Mohan
2.Kanigiri Arjuna Rao
Vs
1.The Dist. Collector, Kakinada
2.Sri. Subrahmanyam
|
Relief Granted: "The decision rendered by the District Collector on 2.8.1988 relates to the petitioner in writ petition No.14494 of 1988, his father and the father of petitioners 1 to 6 in Writ Petition No.18000 of 1988 are found to be brothers. The district Collector by his decision dated 2.8.1988, has negative the status of 'Konda Kapu' to the petitioner in Writ petition no.14494 of 1988. There cannot be two conflicting decisions especially when all the petitioners belong to one family called 'Kanigiri family'. The learned signle Judge, as we have already noted, has gone by the verdict rendered by the joint Collector on 15.10.1990 to pass orders, as he did and as we have recapitulated supr. Since we are unable to uphold the decision of the Joint Collector dated 15.10.1990, we are unable to sustain the common order passed by the learned single Judge covering the three writ petitions and it obliges us to interfere in these three writ appeals. Then the question that relevantly arises for our consideration is as to what course we should adopt to settle the issue concerning the status of Konda Kapu claimed by the members of Kanigiri family who are petitioners in the three writ petitions. The District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada, in our view, must be directed to go into the whole question; consider all the relevant materials including evidence - oral and documentary, after affording adequate opportunity to all the parties hereto to make their say and prove their respective stand, and decide the question comprehensively and by a speaking order, avoiding the infirmities which we have noted and which alone obliged us to interfere in these three writ appeals.
Accordingly, we allow these three writ appeals, set aside the common order passed by the learned single judge in writ petition nos. 14494 of 1988, 18000 of 1988 and 5516 of 1991, and the entire matter will stand remitted to the file of the District Collector East Godavari at Kakinada for fresh disposal as per our directions given above. The result is, neither the order of the district Collector dated 2.8.1988, impugned in Writ petition No.14494 of 1988, nor the orders of the Joint Collector date 15.10.1990 referred to above, survive and they stand deleted. The District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada shall give audience to all the parties hereto, including the appellants herein, and shall afford them adequate opportunity to demonstrate their respective stand. We make it clear that the status which the petitioners in the writ petitions enjoy as Konda Kapu as on date, shall not be disturbed until the decision is rendered afresh by the District Collector, East Godavri at Kakinada . These Writ Appeals are allowed in the above terms. We make no order as to costs."
Relief Sought: To issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the 2 nd respondent is already biased and prejudiced as Sub-Collector, Rampachodavaram, E.G. in relatio to the social status of petitioners family and consequently direct the initiation and continuation of enquiry into the social status in Ref.B2/5790/96 and B2/5832/96("directed to appear before the Collector on the said date and time with all relavant documentary evidence if any available with you in support of your caste claim.")to any other Dist. Collector.
Implead petition: to permit him to be impleaded as 3 rd respondent in W.P.No.19972/94.
|
filed on November 1993
disposed on 22-2-94
Pending at District Collector court- followed up by M.V.Ramana, Advocate.
Disposed On : 14-Aug-1992
Letter to Minister for Tribal welfare on 13-2-09
filed on 20-09-1996
disposed on 30-7-97 |
9
Civil Appeal No.10754/95
SLP©No.26248/95 |
Sakti
Vs
R.K.Ragala& others |
Relief Granted: " Since the Ragala (R1) now stands retired from service, no useful prupose will be served to continue the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice which was quashed by the High Court.No doubt the High Court was not justified in exercising its power to nip the action in the bud at the notice stage itself.As regards the law recently this court has considered the controversy and laid the law in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Additional commissioner[JT 1994(5)SC 488=(1994) 6 SCC 241] and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P.V.Laveti Giri&Anr.[JT 1995(3)SC 684].The ratio of the High Court decision is no longer good law.
Under these circumstances, we think that no useful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings. However if the children of the first respondent lay any claim on the basis that they are scheduled Tribes, it would be open to take appropriate decision or action as is warranted under law.
JT 1995(8) S.C.507". |
Disposed on
9-11-95.
F- Pending at District Collector court- followed up by M.V.Ramana, Advocate.
Letter of Dist collector to The mandal Revenue Officer,Peddapuram
News
|
9
W.P.No.5161 of 2004 |
Between:
'SAKTI', a Voluntary social organization
AND
The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada |
Relief Sought : circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent in not passing final orders in the cases arising out of false community certificates under the provisions of A. P. (S.C., ST. and B.C) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 for several years as illegal and void and consequently direct the respondent to pass final orders in accordance with law forthwith.
Relief Granted : Affidavit to be filed within six weeks from today. Copy of the order to be communicated to the respondent and if the affidavit is not filed, the respondent shall be present in Court on the next date of adjournment. |
Interm Order
Order |
