HC slaps fine of 1 lakh each on 14 farmers for deceiving it for beneficial orders

Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has actually slapped a fine of one lakh each on 14 farmers after reprimanding them for “deceiving the court” or concealing details, with the concealed goal of winning beneficial orders. A single-judge bench of Justice Ravinath Tilhari heard the petition submitted by the farmer Bellamkonda Venkata Narayana and 13 others from Ippatam town of Tadepalli mandal in Guntur district. The court reprimanded the farmers for hiding details about the invoice of program cause notifications in order to get an interim stay order on demolition of homes. The court directed the farmers to pay the fine to AP Legal Services Authority. The act of the farmers belonged to abuse of judicial treatment, the court kept in mind, and inquired to quit such practices. The court struck off the case submitted by farmers versus the demolitions. The farmers from Ippatam town moved a lunch movement petition on Nov. 4 looking for a stay order on the continuous partial demolition of homes and substance walls in the town as part of the roadway broadening works. They hoped that no additional action be taken by the authorities based upon a notification served on them on May 21, as the administration’s act was “versus the concepts of natural justice.” In the subsequent hearing, counsel of Mangalagiri-Tadepalli community corporation sent to the court that the civic body had actually served a program cause notification to all the petitioners on May 10, if their residential or commercial property ought to not be touched. Counsel notified the court that the petitioners hid this details and got an interim order to stop the demolition. Petitioners’ counsel Sai Surya sent to the court that the farmers did get the program cause notification from the civic authorities however they might not construct out the distinction in between the program cause notification and a typical notification. Out of the 14 farmers, 11 appeared prior to the court face to face based upon its earlier instructions while the staying 3 did not go to the court on individual factors. The court asked very first petitioner Bellamkonda Venkata Narayana regarding what failed. He reacted by stating the petitioners had actually gotten a notification in May and they took it to the notification of the regional MLA. They were not familiar with the material in the notification, he stated. The petitioners’ counsel pleaded with the court to reveal grace on them, the court declined to be lax. …
Read More