Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 192 (0.03 seconds)
Documents citing Balmokand Khatri Educational ... vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 14 February, 1996

Sanjay Tyagi & Anr vs State Of Raj & Ors on 27 October, 2010

In the light of the judgment in the case of Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors. (supra) so as the judgment in the case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) and also in the case of Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, U.P. Vs. Suresh Nand Juyal @ Musa Ram (Deceased) by LRs Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 224, the private respondents are not having rightful possession over the land rather for respondent No.7, even their suit for specific performance and also challenge to the acquisition was not accepted with a clear finding that land in dispute is under acquisition, thus agreement to sale is void. In that situation, private respondents have no authority to possess the property. In the circumstances, the J.D.A. is free to take action to remove the encroachment. This is more specifically when the private respondents are possessing not only the building area but even the open land, which even according to them was subject matter of acquisition because as per the arguments of the private respondents, only structures were excluded from acquisition.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 65 - Cited by 1 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

Reserved On: 01.04.2026 vs Of on 20 May, 2026

16. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 212 have laid down that the normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking of possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Their Lordships have held as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.A.L. Layout Residents Association vs Bangalore Development Authy . on 9 August, 2017

In  Balmokand Khatri Educational And Industrial Trust, Amritsar versus State Of Punjab and Others, (1996)   4   SCC   212,   this   Court   had   laid   down   that 44 normal   mode   of   taking   possession   is   drafting   the Panchnama   in   presence   of   Panches   and   taking possession   and   giving   delivery   to   the   Officials. Para 4 of the judgment is as follows:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Paraspar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti vs The State Of M.P. & Ors. on 10 January, 2024

In Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab [(1996) 4 SCC 212 : AIR 1996 SC 1239] yet again the question was as to the taking over of the possession of agricultural land and it was observed thus: (SCC p. 215, para 4) "4. It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood completed by 17-4-1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sunita Sahrawat And Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 29 May, 2015

After making reference to the judgments in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat [(1976) 1 SCC 700], Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab [(1996) 4 SCC 212] , P.K. Kalburqi v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 12 SCC 489] , NTPC Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta [(2009) 8 SCC 339 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 375], Sita Ram Bhandar Society v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2009) 10 SCC 501 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 268] , Omprakash Verma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 13 SCC 158 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 823] and Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 1 SCC 434] this Court laid down the following principles:(Banda Development Authority case [(2011) 5 SCC 394], SCC p. 411, para 37) "(i) No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 7 - A G Masih - Full Document

Mr.G.Balasubramanian vs The State Government Of Tamil Nadu on 6 June, 2014

It was not disputed that in the revenue records it was L&T Ltd. who was shown in possession of the land. Affidavits of the Panchas filed in the High Court which contained statements contrary to what was recorded in the Panchanama and against the revenue entries are quite meaningless and in our opinion High Court unnecessarily put undue reliance on the same. High Court could not convert itself into a revenue court and hold that in spite of the Panchanama and the revenue records actual physical possession of the acquired land had not been handed over to the acquiring body. High Court, in our opinion, has not correctly analysed the two judgments of this Court in Balmokand Khatri Educational & Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab1 and Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors.2 to come to the conclusion that actual physical possession of the land was not taken over by the State.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Smt. Tika Bai Kosta vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2024

In Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab [(1996) 4 SCC 212 : AIR 1996 SC 1239] yet again the question was as to the taking over of the possession of agricultural land and it was observed thus: (SCC p. 215, para 4) "4. It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood completed by 17-4- 1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

The Secretary To Government vs W.A.D.Thomson on 23 October, 2024

In Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab [(1996) 4 SCC 212 : AIR 1996 SC 1239] yet again the question was as to the taking over of the possession of agricultural land and it was observed thus: (SCC p. 215, para 4) “4. It is seen that the entire gamut of the 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev. Aplc(MD)No.30 of 2023 acquisition proceedings stood completed by 17-4- 1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession.”
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. vs Kailash Devi Khanna And Another on 28 February, 2000

It was not disputed that in the revenue records it was L & T Ltd. who was shown in possession of the land. Affidavits of the panchas filed in the High Court which contained statements contrary to what was recorded in the panchnama and against the revenue entries are quite meaningless and in our opinion the High Court unnecessarily put undue reliance on the same. The High Court could not convert itself into a revenue court and hold that in spite of the panchanama and the revenue records actual physical possession of the acquired land had not been handed over to the acquiring body. The High Court, in our opinion, has not correctly analysed the two judgments of this Court in Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust Vs. State of Punjab and Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagtwat to come to the conclusion that actual physical possession of the land was not taken over by the State.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next