Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 was amended by Amendment Act 16/2013 - According to the Amendment, pattas granted for the service inams burdened with service should be deemed to have been null and void - claim that it was a service inam and patta pass books and title deeds were given and he is owner of the property to alienate - not tenable -even not entitled to remain in possession as he is rendering services now - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports



Andhra
Pradesh (A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1956 was amended by Amendment Act 16/2013 and is     
retrospective in operation.   

According to the Amendment, pattas
granted for the service inams burdened with service should be
deemed to have been null and void and no effect can be given to
the pattas in that manner.

the land in issue is granted as
Adyapaka Service, the extract of village Resettlement register is
filed.  It would thus show that the inam granted to the ancestors of
the petitioner was service inam.   
In accordance with the mandate
of Section 4(4) of the Act, 1956, even if ryotwari patta was granted
to the petitioner, the same has no legal validity and thus, pattadar
pass books or title deeds issued in terms thereof have no legal
validity.   Having regard to the mandate of Sections 43 and 46(3) of
Act, 1987 and Section 4(4) of Act, 1956, the title continues to  vest
in the temple and petitioner is not entitled to alienate the said
property. 
 According to Section 75 of Act, 1987, sale of land
granted as service inam would be null and void unless such
transaction is effected with the prior sanction of the Government.
In fact, the case of the 6th respondent-temple is that even petitioner
is not entitled to be in possession of the said property as petitioner
is not rendering any service to the temple and the temple is
entitled to claim possession of the property.

as per the Resettlement
Register of the Village, the land is classified as temple Adyapaka
Service and as per the provision of Section 4(4) of the Act, 1956,
no ryotwari patta can be granted and even if it is already granted,
it is null and void and property continues to be vested in the
institution.  Thus, as per the material on record, the property
continues to vest in the 6th respondent temple.    Therefore,
petitioner cannot claim, merely on the factum of his possession or
the earlier inam granted to his ancestors for the service rendered
by them, to contend that he is the owner and entitled to alienate.
Thus, in the facts of this case, the petitioner is not entitled to relief
prayed by him and writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is
accordingly dismissed.   However, it is left open to the petitioner to
ascertain his title by due process of law and any observations
made in the writ petition do not come in the way in adjudicating
the claim of the petitioner on the title to the property in issue.  No
costs. -2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more