Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (2.22 seconds)
Documents citing Ananda Behera And Another vs The State Of Orissa And Another on 27 October, 1955

Smt. Guddi Wife Of Keshav Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 1 April, 1997

11. Coming to the question of correctness or otherwise of the three Judge decision of this Court in, Board of Revenue, v Mulak Raj. 1984 LJ 331 (SB) it is our considered view that though the decision of the Supreme Court in, Ananda Behera's case (AIR 1956 SC 17), has been noticed, but it has not been properly appreciated and applied. It appears to us that the decision is also not in consonance with the ratio of the Supreme Court noted earlier.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 7 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

State Of U.P. Through Asst. ... vs Farookh Ahmad on 13 April, 2023

10. The matter is no more res integra as it has already been decided by five Judges Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Guddi (supra) wherein this Court relying upon earlier decision of Constitution Bench of Apex Court rendered in Ananda Behera and another (supra) had held that grant of fisheries right and agreement having been arrived is within the purview of ''lease', as defined under Section 2(16) of the Act and is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 35(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R R Agarwal - Full Document

Ajit Kumar Bagchi vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 17 December, 1956

8. Lastly, comes the question as to what relief can be granted in the application of the petitioner. The learned Advocate-General argues that even if some rights of the petitioner have been affected, an application for a high prerogative writ was not the proper remedy. He points out that in Ananda Behera's case (G) (supra), Bose J., held that if the State was wrong in its attitude, that might give rise to a suit against it for damages for breach of contract or possibly to a right to sue for specific performance. That of course presupposes that the right claimed by the petitioner was in respect of anything in the nature of a "profit a Prendre".
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Other vs The Tltaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd.& ... on 1 March, 1985

It is plain, that if they were merely contracual rights, then as pointed out in the two later decisions, in Ananda Behera v. The State of Orissa, Shantabai's case, the State has not acquired or taken possession of those rights but has only declined to be bound by the agreements to which they were not a party. If, on the other hand, the petitioners were mere licensees, then also, as pointed out in the second of the two cases cited, the licences came to T-l 132 an end on the extinction of the title of the licensors. In either case there was no question of the breach Or any fundamental right of the petitioners which could support the petitions which were presented under Art. 32 of the Constituion. It is this aspect of the matter which was not brought to the notice of the Court, and the resulting omission to advert to it has seriously impaired, if not completely nullified, the effect and weight of the decision in Chhotabhai's case as a precedent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 103 - Cited by 194 - D P Madon - Full Document

Manoharan T.B vs The Government Of India on 8 October, 2007

In the case of Ananda Behera and another v. State of Orissa and another (AIR 1956 SC 17), an agreement was entered into granting a right to catch and carry away fish from WA.2865/07 & 238/08 20 specific portions of the lake over a specified future period for certain amounts. This right obtained as a licence, was to enter on the land coupled with a grant to catch and carry away fish. The petitioner in the said case had entered into a contract with an ex- proprietor of an estate prior to its vesting in the State of Orissa. That contract permitted the petitioner to pay certain amounts for certain period to grant licence to catch and carry away fish from specific portion of lake situated in the said estate. Subsequent to its vesting with the State, the State of Orissa refused to recognise these licences and proceeded to re-auction the rights. At that point of time, they approached the Court seeking writ under Article 32 of the Constitution contending that their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution were about to be infringed. Their Lordships held that even assuming that 'contract' is 'property' within the meaning of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, no question under those Articles would arise because the State refused to recognise the existence of the contract and it does not amount to confiscation or taking possession of the contract as such, hence, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed.
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudarsan Mandal And Others vs Bhusan Mandal And Others on 8 January, 2018

"Ananda Behera and another v. State of Orissa and another, AIR 1956 SC 17 is a locus classicus on the subject. The dispute pertained to fishery rights of the plaintiffs over a portion of Chilka lake. The estate was vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Long before vesting of the estate, the petitioners had entered into contracts with the ex proprietor Raja of Parikud and had obtained from the latter, on payment of heavy sums, licences for catching and appropriating all the fish from the fisheries detailed in the schedule of the petition. The State of Orissa refused to recognise the licenses and were about to reauction the rights. At this juncture, the petitioner had approached the apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the ground that their fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 (I) were infringed. The question arose before the apex Court as to whether the petitioners had acquired any rights or interests in "property" by their several "purchases". The Constitution Bench of the apex Court held that the lake is immoveable property. After promulgation of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, it vested in the State of Orissa. Right to catch and carry away fish in specific sections of the lake over a specified future period amounts to licence to enter on the land coupled with a grant to catch and carry away the fish, that is to say, it is a 'profit a prendre' which has been regarded as a benefit that arises out of the land and, as such, is immoveable property. If 'profit a prendre' is regarded as tangible immoveable property and the property value is more than Rs.100/- it requires registration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Rath - Full Document

B C Kailay vs M/O Communications on 3 June, 2016

[Ananda v. State of Orissa (supra)]; (b) where an educational institution is temporarily deprived of its right to manage its property to secure compliance with the provisions of a statue enacted to control the system of education [Katra Education Society v. State of UP AIR 1967 SC 1307] ; and (c) where the right in question is not an absolute right but a defeasible one (Vadia v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1967 SC 346), e.g.,the right to hold an office is terminated by the abolition of the post (Ramanathan v. State of Kerala), or where a grant of property is subject to a condition and for the violation of that condition the grant is revoked.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durdyodhan Mallik vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ......... ... on 19 September, 2024

"Apart from the other contentions raised by the petitioner, it appears that the proceeding under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 was stillborn one since the demand against the petitioner is not collectible as arrears of revenue. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner had never executed any registered agreement for the lease even though he had signed only a form of agreement. Neither a full- fledged agreement had come into existence nor was it registered. A right to catch fish is a right to profits a pendre and is unquestionably immoveable property requiring registration for its assignment as has been held by Ananda Behera and another v. State of Orissa and another and The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Co-operative Society Ltd., v. Sipahi Singh and others. Under the provisions of paragraph (iii) of the Schedule I to the Page 23 of 32 Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, the demand arising out of a fishery amongst other things would become a public demand collectible as arrears of land revenue only if it is so stipulated under an agreement executed by the person concerned. An agreement would undoubtedly mean a valid agreement which in this case was to have been a registered one. Since there was no such agreement, the petitioner had never agreed that the demand raised against him was to be collected under the provisions of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 and hence no such proceeding could be started."
Orissa High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 April, 2007

In Ananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa, cited supra, the Supreme Court held that a profit a prendre is a benefit arising out of land and that in view of Clause (26) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, it is immovable property within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioners in that case had obtained oral licences for catching and appropriating fish from specified sections of the Chilka Lake from its proprietor, the Raja of Parikud, on payment of large sums of money prior to the enactment of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. Under the said Act, the estates of the Raja of Parikud vested in the State of Orissa and the State refused to recognize the rights of the petitioners and was seeking to re-auction the rights of fishery in the said lake. The petitioners, contending that the State had infringed or was about to infringe their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution of India, filed petitions in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In their petition, the petitioners claimed that the transactions entered into by them were sales of future goods, namely, fish in the sections of the lake covered by the licences and that as fish was movable property, the said Act was not attracted because it was confined to immovable property. The Court observed that if this contention of the petitioners was correct, then their petition under Article 32 was misconceived because until any fish was actually caught, the petitioners would not acquire any property in it. The Court held that what was sold to the petitioners was the right to catch and carry away fish in specific sections of the lake for a specified future period and that this amounted to a licence to enter on the land coupled with a grant to catch and carry away the fist which right was a profit a prendre and in England it would be regarded as an interest in land because it was a right to take some profit of the soil for the use of the owner of the right and in India it would be regarded as a benefit arising out of the land and as such would be immovable property. The Court then pointed out that fish did not come under the category of property excluded from the definition of immovable property. The Court further held that if a profit a prendre is regarded as tangible immovable property, then the property being over Rs.100 in value, the document creating such right would require to be registered, and if it was intangible immovable property, then a registered instrument would be necessary whatever the value, but as in the case before the Court the sales were all oral and therefore, there being neither writing nor registration, the transactions passed no title or interest and accordingly the petitioners had no fundamental rights which they could enforce.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrimati Shantabai vs State Of Bombay & Others on 24 March, 1958

The result is that, though such trees as can be regarded as standing timber at the date of the document, both because of their size and girth and also because of the intention to fell at an early date, would be moveable, property for the purposes of the Transfer of Property and Registration Acts, the remaining trees that are also covered by the grant will be immoveable property, and as the total value is Rs. 26,000, the deed requires registration. Being unregistered, it passes no title or interest and, therefore, as in Ananda Behera's case (1) the petitioner has no fundamental right which she can enforce.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 51 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next