Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 510 (2.71 seconds)
Documents citing K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2011

Siddique Areekkan vs The Senior Geologist on 19 December, 2025

35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Eassa E.K vs The Senior Geologist on 19 December, 2025

35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Abdul Samad vs The District Geologist on 19 December, 2025

35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Eassa E.K vs The Senior Geologist on 19 December, 2025

35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Eassa E.K vs The Senior Geologist on 19 December, 2025

35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Tutu Jose vs The State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2025

35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Ashok George vs The Secretary To Government on 19 December, 2025

35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Sainul Abdeen vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2025

35. In Jilubhai46, it was held that the material resources of community are a wide concept and must be broadly interpreted to bring within its sweep all resources, natural or physical, movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible properties, etc. It was further held that the mines, minerals and quarries embedded in the land are material resources of the community amenable to public use or for distribution. In Property Owners' Association47, the Supreme Court recently held that there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class, and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community', it may fall within the net of the provision. It was also held that the resources, though privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well- being of the community, will fall within the net of Article 39(b), to 45 K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 46 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another (1995) Supp.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Mahadev Balaji Walvekar And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of City Of Pune ... on 6 May, 2026

46. We have already taken note of the position of law clarified by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K. T. Plantation Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka (supra), to the effect that law depriving a person of his property, even under Article 300A of the Constitution, is not immune from challenge before a Constitutional Court for violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. We find that by applying the test to the impugned Rule, the same is found to be arbitrary and unsustainable, not only on the ground of offering illusory compensation of ₹ 1, but it also fails to sustain itself from a valid statutory source, due to reference to wholly irrelevant provisions of the BPMC Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Ramdas Krishnarao Tulsibagwale And ... vs Municipal Corporation Of The City Of ... on 6 May, 2026

46. We have already taken note of the position of law clarified by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K. T. Plantation Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka (supra), to the effect that law depriving a person of his property, even under Article 300A of the Constitution, is not immune from challenge before a Constitutional Court for violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. We find that by applying the test to the impugned Rule, the same is found to be arbitrary and unsustainable, not only on the ground of offering illusory compensation of ₹ 1, but it also fails to sustain itself from a valid statutory source, due to reference to wholly irrelevant provisions of the BPMC Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next