Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Swarup & Ors vs S.N.Maira & Ors on 17 December, 1998

(O&M) Harpat And Others vs Boota Singh And Others on 28 November, 2025

20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (supra) and Ram Swarup v. S.N. Maira (supra) has authorita/vely held that an order passed without no/ce to a person, who is mandatorily required to be heard is wholly without jurisdic/on and void ab ini/o. A void order is non-est in the eyes of law and cannot confer any rights on any party. Vest- ing under Sec/on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act can take effect only where surplus land is validly declared.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Shivashankarappa T vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2022

53. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before the High Court was trying to establish her right in an independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent legal right. It was the first allottee who could have continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled. He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action and restore his legal right.
Karnataka High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kedarnath Swain vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 22 February, 2023

It is because of such allotment and delivery of possession in their favour, that is required under the statute, rights are created in favour of such allottees and, therefore, they are necessary parties as has been held in Ram Swarup v. S.N. Maira [Ram Swarup v. S.N. Maira, (1999) 1 SCC 738]. The subtle distinction has to be understood. It does not relate to a post or position which one holds in a fortuitous circumstance. It has nothing to do with a vacancy. The land of which possession is given and the landless persons who have received the pattas and have remained in possession, they have a right to retain their possession. It will be an anarchical situation, if they are not impleaded as parties, whereas in a case which relates to a post or position or a vacancy, if he or she who holds the post because of the vacancy having arisen is allowed to be treated as a necessary party or allowed to assail the order, whereby the earlier post holder or allottee succeeds, it will only usher in the reverse situation -- an anarchy in law.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Mishra - Full Document

Chief Of The Army Staff And Ors. vs Daya Shanker Tiwari on 22 July, 2003

In Ram Swarup and Ors., v. S.N. Maira and Ors., 1999 (1) SCC 738, the Apex Court held that if a right has been conferred upon a particular person, it cannot be taken away by the Court as a consequence of litigation between other parties without impleading such an affected person. The Court was dealing with a surplus land allotted to landless persons who had been given possession thereof and the High Court had entertained the writ petition on behalf of the original tenure-holder without impleading such allottees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such allottees were necessary parties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 17 December, 2004

Saharanpur, 1998 (3) SCC 246; Ram Swarup and Ors. v. S.N. Maira and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 738; Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 287; Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 606; Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 481; M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit v. Indian Coffee Worker's Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 204 and Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 1501].
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Triloki Nath Pandey (H.C.C.P. 232) And ... on 2 December, 2004

Judge, Saharanpur and Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 246; Ram Swarup and Ors. v. S.N. Maira and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 738; Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 287 ; Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 606; Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 481 and M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit v. Indian Coffee Workers' Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 204 ; and Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees' Welfare Association and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 76].
Allahabad High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 8 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Poonam vs State Of U.P.. on 29 October, 2015

It is because of such allot- ment and delivery of possession in their favour, that is re- quired under the statute rights are created in favour of such allottees and, therefore, they are necessary parties as has been held in Ram Swarup & Ors. vs. S.N. Maira & Ors.43 The subtle distinction has to be understood. It does not re- late to a post or position which one holds in a fortuitous cir- cumstance. It has nothing to do with a vacancy. The land of which possession is given and the landless persons who have received the Pattas and have remained in possession, they have a right to retain their possession. It will be an an- archical situation, if they are not impleaded as parties, whereas in a case which relates to a post or position or a va- cancy, if he or she who holds the post because of the va- cancy having arisen is allowed to be treated as a necessary party or allowed to assail the order, whereby the earlier post holder or allottee succeeds, it will only usher in the reverse situation – an anarchy in law.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 18 August, 2005

41. In the instant case, the applicant cannot claim to have any vested right to the office. He has merely a chance to officiate in case the Adhyaksha is removed, Applicant has a personal gain and his move appears to be politically motivated, therefore, it is beyond our imagination that he has come forward for any public interest. His application is liable to be rejected. The facts of the case of Ram Swarup and Ors. v. S.N. Maira, relied upon by Mr. Shashi Nandan are distinguishable from the present case. The Apex Court therein held that in a case where a chunk of land had been declared to be surplus in view of the provisions of the Ceiling Act and the surplus land is allotted to different persons, the allottees are necessary parties, in that case the allottees had been given a vested right in the land and the present case does not present similar features as it merely creates a right to officiate for a maximum period of six" months if the Adhyaksha is not available.
Allahabad High Court Cites 164 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next