When a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, no doubt, the procedure as contemplated under Chapter XIX B dealing with cases instituted otherwise than on police report, has to be scrupulously followed. But in the present case, even though the case was instituted otherwise than on police report, the learned Magistrate, instead of following the procedure under Chapter XIX B of Cr.P.C., followed the procedure by framing charges under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which is a procedural irregularity.

CRLP 4289 / 2016 CRLPSR 14134 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT SHAIK JANIBEE @ MADARAPU JANAKI, NALGONDA DT., VS THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP AND 2 OTRS., SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Other offences not covered(Misc.) DISTRICT: NALGONDA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Petition No.4289 of 2016 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed… Read More When a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, no doubt, the procedure as contemplated under Chapter XIX B dealing with cases instituted otherwise than on police report, has to be scrupulously followed. But in the present case, even though the case was instituted otherwise than on police report, the learned Magistrate, instead of following the procedure under Chapter XIX B of Cr.P.C., followed the procedure by framing charges under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which is a procedural irregularity.

The scope and import of the statutory obligation of the police to register a FIR upon receiving a complaint is no longer res integra

WP 16223 / 2016 WPSR 84931 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT K.JANAKI, RR DIST VS PRL. SECRETARY, HOME DEPT., HYD & 3 OTHERS SUBJECT: HOME DEPARTMENT (MISC.MATTERS) DISTRICT: RANGA REDDY THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16223 OF 2016 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that the police authorities have not… Read More The scope and import of the statutory obligation of the police to register a FIR upon receiving a complaint is no longer res integra

Sub-Registrar/Registering Authority under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “Act 1977”) objections to register a document under Section 22-A of the Act. – lands assigned prior to 1954 without the condition of non-alienability =The competent authority shall prepare the list of assigned lands with the condition of non-alienability and forward the list to Sub-Registrar/Registering Authority under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “Act 1977”). The petitioners who claim to have lands assigned prior to 1954 without the condition of non-alienability are given liberty to place details of assignment and decisions of this Court on the applicability of “Act 1977” to such assignment, for updating and operating the prohibitory list by these authorities under Section 22-A of the Act. – The respondent/Government having regard to a particular fact situation, if is desirous of including land assigned prior to 1954 in prohibitory list and claims interest in the property, the prohibition of such registration shall be by way of a notification under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Act. It is open to the aggrieved party to assail such notification, if any, issued by the authority competent. It is made clear that refusal of registration by S.R.O in a given case results in fresh cause of action and the party aggrieved, by such rejection, is given liberty to pursue the legal remedies available to him/her in law.

WA 142 / 2016 WASR 175367 / 2014 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT SRI VARAHA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE, VISAKHAPATNAM. VS SMT. JAMI BHAVANI @ BUJJI, VISAKHAPATNAM, & ANR. SUBJECT: STAMPS & REGISTRATION DISTRICT: VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HON’BLE THE… Read More Sub-Registrar/Registering Authority under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “Act 1977”) objections to register a document under Section 22-A of the Act. – lands assigned prior to 1954 without the condition of non-alienability =The competent authority shall prepare the list of assigned lands with the condition of non-alienability and forward the list to Sub-Registrar/Registering Authority under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “Act 1977”). The petitioners who claim to have lands assigned prior to 1954 without the condition of non-alienability are given liberty to place details of assignment and decisions of this Court on the applicability of “Act 1977” to such assignment, for updating and operating the prohibitory list by these authorities under Section 22-A of the Act. – The respondent/Government having regard to a particular fact situation, if is desirous of including land assigned prior to 1954 in prohibitory list and claims interest in the property, the prohibition of such registration shall be by way of a notification under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Act. It is open to the aggrieved party to assail such notification, if any, issued by the authority competent. It is made clear that refusal of registration by S.R.O in a given case results in fresh cause of action and the party aggrieved, by such rejection, is given liberty to pursue the legal remedies available to him/her in law.

suit for declaration that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the property from the respondent by directing the respondent to remove the tin shed construction and two rooms therein by way of mandatory injunction. – basing on allotment letter by defendant society and basing on injunction decree – mere letter of allotment cannot confer title as it is not a registered sale deed – Trial court and Appellant court rightly dismissed the suit despite of the fact that the defendant remained exparte = It is settled law that in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession, burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and he must succeed on the strength of his own title (Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira and Ors. [1] and Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others [2] ). None of the documents filed by appellant establish his title to the plaint schedule property and admittedly the appellant has no registered sale deed executed by the above Society in his favour.

SA 38 / 2016 SASR 24256 / 2014 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT V SARVESHAM VS CHILUKU CHANDRAIAH RESP.ADV. : SUBJECT: DECLARATION OF TITLE(IMMOVABLE PROPERTY) DISTRICT: WARANGAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.38 of 2016 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dt.17-04-2014 in A.S.No.95… Read More suit for declaration that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the property from the respondent by directing the respondent to remove the tin shed construction and two rooms therein by way of mandatory injunction. – basing on allotment letter by defendant society and basing on injunction decree – mere letter of allotment cannot confer title as it is not a registered sale deed – Trial court and Appellant court rightly dismissed the suit despite of the fact that the defendant remained exparte = It is settled law that in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession, burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and he must succeed on the strength of his own title (Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira and Ors. [1] and Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others [2] ). None of the documents filed by appellant establish his title to the plaint schedule property and admittedly the appellant has no registered sale deed executed by the above Society in his favour.

Injunction suit – rehabilitation scheme – the allotment proceedings did not contain any prohibition on alienation of the property.trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, – held that there is no wrong to interfere – Dismissed the appeal

SA 185 / 2016 SASR 45113 / 2010 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT MAMIDI ESWARAMMA VS YELLAPU MAHESWARARAO THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO.185 OF 2016 DATED:10-06-2016 Between: Mamidi Eswaramma … Appellant And Yellapu Maheswararao … Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. T.D. Phani… Read More Injunction suit – rehabilitation scheme – the allotment proceedings did not contain any prohibition on alienation of the property.trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, – held that there is no wrong to interfere – Dismissed the appeal

Whether the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy is legal, proper and correct in respect of granting interest ? The next objection of insurance company is that the lower authority has granted interest, though Workmen’s Compensation Act does not provide any provision for payment of interest. But as seen from the order of lower authority it granted interest by relying on judgment of the Supreme Court. Both sides have not disputed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to in the order of lower authority, therefore, objection of insurance company with regard to interest is also not tenable.

CMA 313 / 2016 CMASR 13157 / 2011 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM. VS UDHAV AND 2 OTHERS SUBJECT: W.C.ACT & E.S.I. ACT(DEATH) DISTRICT: HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CMA No.313 of 2016 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed with delay condonation petition. On the request of both sides… Read More Whether the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy is legal, proper and correct in respect of granting interest ? The next objection of insurance company is that the lower authority has granted interest, though Workmen’s Compensation Act does not provide any provision for payment of interest. But as seen from the order of lower authority it granted interest by relying on judgment of the Supreme Court. Both sides have not disputed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to in the order of lower authority, therefore, objection of insurance company with regard to interest is also not tenable.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O. 43, r.1(u) r/w O.41, r.23-A and s.100 – Miscellaneous civil appeal filed before High Court against order of remand passed in a first appeal under O.41 – Held: Is maintainable – Order of remand passed under O. 41, r.23-A is amenable to appeal under O. 43, r.1(u) – However, the constraints of s.100 continue to be attached to such an appeal – There is a difference between maintainability of an appeal and the scope of hearing of an appeal – Order of High Court holding the civil miscellaneous appeal as not maintainable set aside. The appellant-plaintiff No. 2 along with two others filed a suit against the defendant-respondent No.1 for declaration and permanent-mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed for permanent injunction. On respondent No. 1 filing a first appeal, the judgment of the trial court was set-aside and the suit was remanded back to the trial court for decision afresh on merits. The civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant and respondent No. 2 under O. 43, r. 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was held by High Court as not maintainable. The review petition was also dismissed.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O. 43, r.1(u) r/w O.41, r.23-A and s.100 – Miscellaneous civil appeal filed before High Court against order of remand passed in a first appeal under O.41 – Held: Is maintainable – Order of remand passed under O. 41, r.23-A is amenable to appeal under O. 43, r.1(u) – However,… Read More Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O. 43, r.1(u) r/w O.41, r.23-A and s.100 – Miscellaneous civil appeal filed before High Court against order of remand passed in a first appeal under O.41 – Held: Is maintainable – Order of remand passed under O. 41, r.23-A is amenable to appeal under O. 43, r.1(u) – However, the constraints of s.100 continue to be attached to such an appeal – There is a difference between maintainability of an appeal and the scope of hearing of an appeal – Order of High Court holding the civil miscellaneous appeal as not maintainable set aside. The appellant-plaintiff No. 2 along with two others filed a suit against the defendant-respondent No.1 for declaration and permanent-mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed for permanent injunction. On respondent No. 1 filing a first appeal, the judgment of the trial court was set-aside and the suit was remanded back to the trial court for decision afresh on merits. The civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant and respondent No. 2 under O. 43, r. 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was held by High Court as not maintainable. The review petition was also dismissed.