Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus VALLURI VANRAJU
- Decided
- 3 August 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 492 · 1995 INSC 436
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 493, margin B
The respondent has submitted his declaration under Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The Land Reforms Officer held that the respondent's holding was in excess of 1.3590 standard Holding. On appeal, it was confirmed but the High Court in revision, which by the impugned order allowed the exclusion of 3 acres 5 cents from the holding. The Advocate Commissioner has submitted his report and on perusal of the Commissioner's report it could be seen that the lands in S.No. 118/1 situated in Alamuru village in an extent of 12 cents and 9 cents respectively should be excluded. Equally the lands in Mandapata bearing S.No. 178/3 in an extent of 6 cents and 3 cents respectively: lands in S.No. 174/l in an extent of 4 cents; lands in S.No. 170/2 in an extent of 3 cents; lands in S.No. 227/4 in an extent of 2 cents and lands in S.No. 224/l in an extent of 4 cents respectively need to be excluded. It is also reported by the Commissioner that in S.No. 469/3 and 469/4 lands in an extent of AC-1.58 cents was acquired in 1970 by the Government for the purpose of constructing houses for the weaker sections and that land was no longer within the holding of the respondent. All these lands alone stand excluded from his holding and the rest of the land are included in the holding of the respondent.
p. 493, margin C
The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs . G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 493, margin F