Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Rev. A. Rampus And Ors. vs Alumuri Subba Reddi And Anr. on 23 November, 1949

Niadar vs State on 2 November, 1970

(13) In a fairly recent decision of the Madras High Court in Rev, A. Anmpus v. Alumuri Subba Reddi Phnchapakesa Ayyar J held the view that trees which are cut and severed a few hours or days before the preliminary order and which are still lying on or near the land come within the expression of crop or produce of land which could be attached along with the land under the said section. The view of Malik J. in Goyal Prasad, that the language of section 145 must be liberally construed in this regird, was concurred in, There was need to arm the Magistrates with sufficient power to attach properties in dispute beween fighting faction? and persons and prevent breaches of the peace. A Magistrate had the power, under section 145 of the Code, even to direct a party to restore properties whose possession had been forcibly taken from others within two months before the order. "It is obvious, therefore, that trees which have just been cut and severed a few hours or days before the preliminary order and are still lying on or near the lands must be within the clear purview of a Magistrate who can restore possession of the lands itself with all the trees etc., on it on the ground of taking forcible possession within two months before."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khaja Naseeruddin And Ors. vs The Commissioner, Survey, Settlement ... on 17 November, 2006

Smt. Jayamala Reddy filed L.G.C.No.140 of 1998 claiming part of plot No. 8. The same was also dismissed on 15.02.2005. The third respondent also denies the title of the petitioners to plot No. 8A. It is alleged that the father of the petitioners purchased plot No. 8A in the name of his four minor sons (including the petitioners herein), that later, father sold away the property under registered document No. 2208 of 1358F, dated 12 Amardad 58 Fasli to Syed Mohammad Hashim Saheb for sale consideration of Rs. 1,500 O.S., that the said Syed Mohammad Hashim Saheb sold plot No. 8A to V. Subba Rao, S/o Sreeramulu in 1955, that later V. Satyavathi, W/o Subba Rao applied for layout, got approval from MCH on 20.08.1968 for construction of a room, and that in 1972, Satyavathi got a revised plan approved for plot No. 8A, admeasuring Ac.2.34 guntas. Therefore, the third respondent alleges that petitioners have no title to claim plot No. 8 and with a view to grab a portion of plot No. 8 have sought survey and demarcation of plot No. 8A. It is also alleged that as per Government Memo, dated 06.12.1967 only the original allottees can claim demarcation of survey and the petitioners' GPA who purchased under agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney has been set up to grab 2,045 square meters of eastern portion of plot No. 8 lying to the west of compound wall existing since several decades spreading plot Nos. 8 and 8A. When the second respondent issued notice, dated 25.05.2005, third respondent produced documents on 28.05.2005 within three days, which was acknowledged by the second respondent and in spite of the same, without conducting survey of demarcation of plot No. 8, the Inspector of Survey completed fixing boundaries of plot No. 8A in a mischievous manner ignoring objections of third respondent in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, third respondent filed appeal to the first respondent as indicated in notice dated 28.05.2005 itself issued by Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

P. Amumacha Sarma vs P. Manimacha Sarma And Ors. on 28 April, 1967

In Deonandan Singh v. Thakur Singh AIR 1949 Pat 58 it was held that the crops which had already been cut and kept on a storing place, which was not the subject-matter of dispute was moveable property and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach the same under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. To the same effect is the decision in J. Kamaraju v. K. Suryanarayana , The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on the analogy of cut crops and in view of the above decisions the C.I. Sheets, which were already removed by the petitioner and kept in his house, Cannot be said to be immovable property and that, therefore, they cannot be attachments counsel is that the C. I. sheets is question were seized by the police a law hours after the occurrence and that they must be deemed to be part of the "mandov' liable to be attached as immovable property under Section 145 Cr.P.C. He relied on the decision reported in A. Rampus v. A. Subba Reddy . In that case some trees were cut and severed a few hours or days before the preliminary order was passed. They were still lying on or near the land. It was held that they could be attached along with the land, since they would fall under the expression 'Crop or produce of land'.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.P. Abu Syed Sahib vs V.P. Ahmed Mohideen Sahib on 18 January, 1951

1. The main contention of Mr. Krishnamurthi on behalf of the petnr is that, the dispute in this case really relates to a mill, which is situated in the premises mentioned in. the preliminary order & that the definition of "land" mentioned in Clause 2 to Section 145 does not, include mills & therefore this cannot be the subject of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. It is no doubt true that the definition of the land mentioned in Clause (2) of the section does not mention mills as being included in the definition. Land or water has been defined to include buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of the land. The definition does not say that the land means buildings, markets etc. It says it includes also buildings, markets etc. The definition is not exhaustive. It is only illustrative. The crops or other produce, i.e., things that could be cut & carried away fall under the definition of the term land. It has been held in 'Rev A. Rampus v. Subba Reddi', following 'Emperor v. Gaya Prasad', ILR 1947 All 741. at p. 743: (AIR (35) 1948 All 94: 49 CrL J 15) that trees cut & lying in the land came within, the definition of land.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1