In the order under appeal dated 23.02.2018, the Learned Single Judge, after extracting the directions issued in W.P. No.32353 of 2013 dated 02.12.2013, noted the contention, in the counter-affidavit of District Collector, that, in view of the order in PIL No.517 of 2013, it was not possible to take further action on the representation filed for regularisation of the land as requested by the petitioner; and, in his prima facie opinion, this communication was in patent violation of the order dated 02.12.2013 passed by the Court in W.P. No.32353 of 2013 which had attained finality. The Learned Single Judge further observed that it was not as though the Division bench had adjudicated PIL No.517 of 2013 on merits declaring G.O.Ms. No.166 dated 16.02.2008 as illegal. On the contrary, on the statement made by the Advocate-General for the State of Telangana, the Division bench had disposed of the Writ Petition accepting the statement that the State would not implement or act upon G.O.Ms. No.166 dated 16.02.2008. Having noted that the order, in W.P. No.32353 of 2013 dated 02.12.2013, was allowed to become final, the Learned Single Judge observed that the State, on its own volition, had undertaken, in PIL No.517 of 2013, that it would not implement and act upon G.O. Ms. No.166 dated 16.02.2008; such an undertaking would not prevail over the judicial adjudication made by the Court in W.P. No.32353 of 2013; and he was, therefore, of the prima facie opinion that the order of rejection, of the application of the petitioners for regularisation, was in violation of the order passed in W.P. No.32353 of 2013 which had attained finality.

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1. (2010) 14 SCC 496

2. (2009) 8 SCC 325

3. (2013) 16 SCC 797

4. (1984) 1 SCC 284

5. (2016) 1 SCC 152

6. (1978) 2 SCC 411 SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.657 and 673 of 2018 COMMON ORDER:

The two petitions are filed, under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to A2, by virtue of order in CRLMP.No.2054 of 2017 dated 08.12.2017 and cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents/A1 and A2, by virtue of order in CRLMP.No.1069 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017, by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. Cr.No.237 of 2017 was registered, against A1 and A2, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 376(2)(n)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and Cr.No.353 of 2017 was subsequently registered against A2 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the appellant-writ petitioner, on an application made by the original owners Sri Hashim Ali and others on 31.12.1996, it was noticed that there was excess land of Acs.35.00 guntas, in possession of the purchasers through the original land owners; the excess area was allotted Survey No.515 for an extent of Acs.18.00 and Survey No.516 for an extent of Acs.17.00; the 2nd respondent passed orders regularising the excess area in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner; and consequent to the letter dated 13.07.1998, addressed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur Mandal, and consequent upon the regularisation proceedings dated 17.08.2000, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner. The 1st respondent issued notice dated 18.12.2017 calling upon the appellant-writ petitioner to appear before him on 20.01.2018 at 11.00 A.M along with all documentary evidence and records with respect to this extent of Ac.35.00 guntas of land in Survey Nos.515 and 516. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

Counsel for respondents-writ petitioners: Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, Learned Counsel <GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

? Citations:

1) (1981) 4 SCC 8 2) (2001) 2 SCC 588 3) 2002 (5) ALD 1 (LB) 4) (1973) 2 SCC 705 5) (2013) 9 SCC 221 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 285 6) 1952 SCR 28 : AIR 1952 SC 12 7) AIR 1983 SC 1272 8) (Judgment in Writ Appeal No.797 of 2016 dated 17.09.2016) 9) (1984) 2 SCC 436 10) (1985) 1 SCC 260 11) (1985) 3 SCC 217 12) (1995) 3 SCC 257 13) 1994 Supp (3) SCC 220 14) (2009) 14 SCC 48 15) (2009) 5 SCC 452 16) (2004)11 SCC 168 17) (1994) 5 SCC 380 18) (2006) 10 SCC 261 19) (2011) 14 SCC 227 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 935 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 890 20) 2002 (1) ALD 280 21) ILR 35 Mad. 1 22) 2016(1) ALT 550 (FB) 23) 1983 (67) STC 424 24) 2001(1) ALD 443(DB) 25) 2012 (6) ALD 458 (DB) 26) (1972) 2 SCC 200 27) 1942 AC 130 28) AIR 1960 SC 1156 29) 1990 Supp. SCC 727

By order dated 28.09.2016, while refusing to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the auction sale held on 15.09.2016, the Tribunal allowed the bank to receive the sale consideration but interdicted it from issuing a sale certificate or disturbing the possession of the petitioners over the secured asset until further orders. However, by the later order dated 05.12.2017, the Tribunal allowed the bank to issue a sale certificate also to the auction purchasers, subject to the outcome of the securitization application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.42417 of 2017 before this Court. By order dated 14.12.2017 passed therein, this Court made it clear that registration of the sale certificate would also be subject to the outcome of the securitization application and disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tribunal to endeavour to dispose of the securitization application on merits expeditiously. Two other writ petitions preceded W.P.No.42417 of 2017, but their details and relevance can be gone into hereinafter.

>Head Note :

? Cases referred

1.(2003) 10 SCC 121 2.2014 (6) ALD 692 (DB) 3.2014 (1) ALD 307 4.2009 (5) ALD 97

5.(1996) 6 SCC 223

6.(2014) 2 SCC 269 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.20585 and 20586 of 2013 COMMON ORDER:

These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the parties are common and the cause of action is also common.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.5.

The undisputed facts in the instant case are that one Sri Veera Mallaiah was the original owner of different extents of land situated in Survey Nos.196, 197 and 206 of Madeenaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He died in the year 1975. The fifth respondent is the son of the said Veera Mallaiah. He appears to have applied for succession certificate in the year 1989, after lapse of 14 years from his fathers death and the same was granted in File No.B/456/89 on 30.03.1989. He did not ask for implementation of the same immediately, but he sought implementation of the same by the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his detailed objections. When repeated notices were issued to the petitioner, petitioner filed W.P.No.11635 of 2009 and the same was disposed of at the admission stage on 23.06.2009 directing the fourth respondent to pass appropriate orders after considering the objections filed by the petitioner. The fourth respondent accordingly passed an order in File No.B/371/2008, dated 30.01.2010, ordering mutation of the name of the fifth respondent in revenue records for the year 2009-2010 in respect of the land of an extent of Acs.7.00 in Survey No.196 and Acs.4.28 guntas in Survey No.197 totally admeasuring Acs.11.28 guntas of Madeenaguda Village. In the meanwhile, it appears that Smt. C.Laxmibai and two others, mother and sisters of petitioner, who purchased a part of the property from the vendee of Veera Mallaiah, applied for mutation and the same was ordered by the fourth respondent in File No.B/2568/2003, dated 26.05.2004, for an extent of land admeasuring Acs.4.23 guntas out of the total purchased land of an extent of Acs.5.27 guntas in Survey No.197 purchased under registered sale deed No.999 of 1979 dated 22.05.1979. The petitioner also obtained another mutation proceeding in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas out of total purchased land of an extent of Ac.0.34 guntas situated in Survey No.197 purchased under registered sale deed No.961 of 1979 dated 18.05.1979 from one Sri Suryanarayana Raju and others, in proceedings No.B/2583/2003 dated 26.05.2004. When the petitioner noticed the name of the fifth respondent in column No.13 of pahani for the years 1982-1983, 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001, he applied to the fourth respondent for deletion of the fifth respondents name from the revenue records in respect of the land in Survey No.197 on 27.09.2006 and the fourth respondent issued proceedings on 17.11.2006 ordering for deletion of the name of the fifth respondent. The said proceedings issued in favour of the petitioner disclosed that the entry in the pahanies of the name of the fifth respondent was with different ink by tampering the records. It was also recorded that the enquiry by the Mandal Revenue Inspector revealed that the land in Survey No.197 (part) was covered by compound wall and certain fruit bearing trees were existing in the site and the land was in possession of the petitioner and by the name of Naren Garden.

>Head Note:

? CASES REFERRED:

1. 2017 (1) ALD 170 (DB)

2. (2004) 4 SCC 311

3. (2014) 1 SCC 479

4. (2010) 8 SCC 110

5. AIR 1969 SC 297

6. (1992) 3 SCC 159

7. (2009) 9 SCC 478

8. (2017) 1 SCC 622

9. (2009) 8 SCC 646

10. AIR 1969 SC 78

11. (2017) 1 SCC 53

12. (2000) 3 SCC 689 THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.22510, 22547 AND 22884 OF 2016 C O M M O N O R D E R (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) Rajanala Kusuma Kumari, Enugala Manjula and Bhukya Shakuntala, the petitioners in these three cases, claim to be the owners of individual house properties bearing H.No.2-4-964/1/A, H.No.2-4-964/1/A/2 and H.No.2-4-964/1/A/1 respectively, situated at Gokul Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

As this is a first appeal, the parties are referred to as they are in the lower Court itself.

The appellants are the Tagore Township Welfare Association and 33 others, who have filed a suit initially against 10 defendants. In the appeal some more respondents were added. The suit was filed for a declaration that the decree and judgment in OS.No.184 of 1989 is collusive, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the true owners of the land/plaint schedule property. They also sought an injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 10 from mutation of the name of the first defendant in the revenue records and other reliefs.

The case of the plaintiffs is that they have purchased the suit schedule property as individual plots of land from one Satyanarayana Reddy through his GPA holders-the defendant Nos.6 and 7. It is their case that they were convinced by the defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 to purchase the plots. The details of the sale deeds by which the plots were purchased were described in plaint. It is the case of all the plaintiffs that after they have purchased the plots, they were put in possession and that the defendants, more particularly, defendant Nos.1, 5 to 7 hatched a plan and filed a suit and got a collusive decree passed in OS.No.184 of 1989. It is their contention that the decree was obtained behind their back and due to a plan hatched by the defendants. Therefore, they sought a declaration that the decree is not binding on them and also sought a declaration of their title. Defendant No.1 is the main contesting defendant in this suit. He filed a written statement strongly denying the plaint averments and stating that Sri Satyanarayana Reddy did not have any title to the property at all. It is the specific case of the first defendant that the land in Sy.Nos.90 and 91 belong to one Afsar Jung Bahadur. The said owner gave the land to the grandfather of the first defendant-Sri Shaik Murthuza for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies and that subsequently his father Sri Jamaluddin got it and after that he inherited the same. He denies that the suit OS.No.184 of 1989 filed by him was a collusive suit and also denied that the decree passed therein was a collusive decree. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 are the wife and children of M.Satyanarayana Reddy. They have filed a written statement stating that Satyanarayana Reddy is the owner of the property and that the first defendant does not have title.

The facts, in brief, are that: the 1st respondent - Union of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Department, which is responsible for exploration, production, refining, distribution, marketing, export, import and conservation of petroleum, natural gas, petroleum products and liquefied natural gas in India, initiated Vijayawada-Dharmapuri Pipeline Project and accorded sanction to the 4th respondent HPCL to execute the said project work, by notifying certain lands in Chandarlapadu, Nandigama and Kanchikacherla Mandals, Krishna District. Petitioners herein own and possess various extents of lands in Kadavatikollu Village, Chandarlapdu Mandal. The case of the petitioners is that by virtue of G.O.Rt.No. 1907, General Administration (SC-B) Department, dated 29.8.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent State of Andhra Pradesh, the 6th respondent was appointed as the Competent Authority, under Section 2(a) of the Act, to perform the functions of the Competent Authority prescribed under the said Act.

2. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows: to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other an appropriate writ and declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.E2/700905/2017 dated 27.9.2017 where in appointing the 6th respondent as full additional charge of the post of Executive Officer to Sri Ganesh Parvathi Sametha Chodeswara Swamy Temple, Pinagadi village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, contrary to Section 19(1)(g) and 15 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987 and to declare the same as illegal arbitrary unjust and also in violation of the Endowments Act and consequently set-a-side the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.E2/700905/2017 dated 27.9.2017 and to pass such other order or orders

Sri Md.Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Sri M. Ravindra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 <GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:

1. (1978) 1 AP LJ 459

2. AIR 1956 SC 110

3. 1990(2) ALT 202 (D.B.)

4. 1976 AIR (SC) 1785

5. 2007 (5) ALT 676

6. AIR 1995 AP 17

7. 1991 AIR 1453

8. 2006 AIR SCW 5192

9. (2004) 8 SCC 733

10. (1999) 6 SCC 464

11. (2000) 7 SCC 425

12. 2016 (4) ALT 426

13. 2009 (15) SCC 705

14. (2013) 5 SCC 336

15. (2006) 7 SCC 597 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH + WRIT PETITION Nos.5978 and 9673 of 2017 Sri A. Murali and another .Petitioners VERSUS The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and three others.

(r) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed under this Act.

13A. Power of Central Government to make rules for the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases in respect of territorial waters or continental shelf of India.?(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases in respect of any minerals underlying the ocean within the territorial waters or the continental shelf of India.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:?

(a) the conditions, limitations and restrictions subject to which such prospecting licences or mining leases may be granted;

$For Respondent:Public Prosecutor.

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:

(2004) 5 SCC 334 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND HONBLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.829 of 2011 JUDGMENT : (Per Honble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait) The present appeal is preferred against the order and judgment dated 29th November 2010, passed in Sessions Case No.335 of 2008 by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, whereby, the appellant was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1.(2014) 4 SCC 715

2.(2012) 10 SCC 464

3.(2017) 11 SCC 222 4.2018 (1) ALT (CRL.) 304 (DB) (AP) THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND THE HONBLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.824 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Honble Smt Justice T. Rajani) The judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in SC.No.92 of 2010 dated 03.01.2011 is brought to question by way of this appeal. The I Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and convicted him for the same and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 364 IPC and convicted him for the same and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioners herein already filed S.A.No.513 of 2016 under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, the SARFAESI Act) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter, the Tribunal) at Hyderabad. Their prayers therein read as follows:

i) Declare that the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 21.10.2016 issued by the Respondent Bank and fixing the date of auction on 30.11.2016 against the schedule properties as arbitrary, illegal and not maintainable under the Act and Rules, 2002,

ii) Declare that the Notice issued under Rule 8 (6) of the Rules, 2002 dated 23.09.2016 and 03.11.2016 issued by the Respondent Bank against the alleged secured assets as arbitrary, illegal and not maintainable under the Act and Rules, 2002,

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD W.P.No.5948 of 2014 ORDER: (per VRS,J) The petitioners, who are now working as Junior Assistants in various Courts in Chittoor District, have come up with the above writ petition, seeking (1) a declaration that Note-1 to Rule 5 of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.100, Law Department, dated 08.08.2013 as illegal; (2) a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to be continued as Field Assistants w.e.f. 01.04.2003 ignoring their paper promotion to the post of Junior Assistants;

(3) a direction to the District Judge, Chittoor to place the petitioners in the category of Field Assistants for the purpose of Seniority and promotion to the post of Senior Assistants; and (4) to set aside the proceedings dated 30.04.2014 by which the newly impleaded respondents were either promoted or proposed to be promoted as Senior Assistants.

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

Nil.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD Writ Petition No.2688 of 2018 Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the cancellation of admission granted to him into MBBS Course during the Academic Year 2015-16.

2. Heard Mr. A.Bhaskarachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University.

3. The petitioner studied up to 10th standard in two different schools in Vijayawada. He did his Intermediate (+2) also at Vijayawada. After completion of Intermediate, the petitioner applied for EAMCET-2015 and he secured a rank of 2530. The petitioner does not belong to any reserved category.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

? Citations:

1) (1990) 1 SCC 411 1) (2013) 4 SCC 540 2) 2003 (3) ALD 512 = 2003 (4) ALT 32 3) (2015) 6 SCC 685 4) (2016) 9 SCC 749 5) (2002) 2 ALD 96 6) (1995) 4 SCC 104 7) (1999) 7 SCC 120 8) (1992) 2 SCC 26 9) (1999) 9 SCC 700 = AIR 1999 SC 1867 10) AIR 1956 SC 35 = (1955) 2 SCR 842 11) (2001) 5 SCC 175 = AIR 2001 SC 1832 12) (1989) 1 SCC 760 13) (1995) 3 SCC 17 14) (1985) 2 SCC 512 15) (1995) 6 SCC 614 16) (2002) 4 SCC 638 17) (1996) 11 SCC 361 18) (1987) 3 SCC 66 19) (2006) 1 SCC 430 20) (1984) 2 SCC 402 21) (1984) 2 SCC 324 22) (2004) 5 SCC 568 23) (1997) 6 SCC 450 24) (2003) 1 SCC 707 25) (1995) 1 SCC 259 26) (1993) 3 SCC 29 27) (1985) 1 SCC 260 28) (2001) 2 SCC 186 29) (1972) 1 All ER 801 30) AIR 1974 SC 1 31) (1997) 10 SCC 264 32) (1997) 2 SCC 713 33) (1994) 2 SCC 630 34) (1996) 3 SCC 493 35) AIR 1955 SC 425 36) (1994) 2 SCC 481 37) (2005) 6 SCC 138 38) (2000) 2 SCC 617 39) AIR 1987 SC 2235 40) AIR 1989 SC 1972 41) (2008) 12 SCC 481 42) (2005) 5 SCC 245 43) AIR 1952 SC 192 44) (2010) 10 SCC 677 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 315 45) (2014) 13 SCC 681 46) (1971) 2 SCC 747 47) (1965) 1 SCR 413 : AIR 1965 SC 745 48) AIR 1961 SC 232 49) AIR 1955 SC 123 50) 2007 (4) ALD 209 51) AIR 1989 SC 44 52) AIR 1989 SC 48 53) AIR 1991 AP 1 = 1990 (2) ALT 567 54) 1998 (1) ALD 53 = 1997 (6) ALT 290 (FB) 55) AIR 1995 AP 86 (FB) 56) 1991 (6) SLR 56 (SC) 57) AIR 1967 SC 1889

2. The contention of the petitioners/accused is that the petitioners Company paid rents and also maintenance till August, 2009. Thereafter, due to slack in business, rents could not be paid and on several occasions petitioners company requested the respondent / complainant to permit them to pay dues in installments. But the complainant threatened the accused company that they will stop supplying electricity/water and other services, if the dues with regard to payment of rents and maintenance are not cleared immediately. Having no other option, Sri Dheeraj Doulat Keswani, one of the Directors of accused company, who negotiated with the complainant, was forced to hand over post dated blank cheques (personal cheques) to the complainant under security. In spite of receiving post dated personal cheques and contrary to the oral understanding arrived between the complainant and Dheeraj Doulat Keswani, without any prior notice, respondent / complainant stopped supplying electricity/water and other services to the accused company and thereby the accused company was forced to close the business due to heavy loss.

2. After the evidence of the petitioner in deciding the contentious issues/points for determination, on behalf of respondent, RW.1 was examined on 19 & 21.12.2017. The relevant portion in the cross examination dated 21.12.2017 continuation of RW.1 i.e., RC.No.391 of 2009 respondent Sunil Kumar Anney for the purpose of revision covered by the part of the deposition of the witness during cross examination, which is in fact the observation of the Court of the happening before it in that course is that: The learned counsel for the petitioner confronted the signature on the Xerox copy of the letter dated 20.05.2009 and posed a question whether, he can identify the signature on the bottom of the said letter (Xerox copy), then the witness answered he identified the signature to be the same of his father, the witness further adds that, this letter does not belong to him. Re- examination nill.