Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 91 (4.18 seconds)
Documents citing R. Chandevarappa Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 September, 1995

V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill vs The Special Commissioner And ... on 10 July, 2012

In R.Chandevarappa & Others v. State of Karnataka reported in 1995 (6) SCC 309, the correctness of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, cancelling the assignment, found to be in violation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1975 and Revenue Code 43(5), was challenged. The appellant before the Supreme Court claimed that he had purchased the property from the sons and daughters of the assignee. Assignment was made to a member, belonging to Scheduled Caste community on 16.11.1951. Alienation was done on 16.10.1968. All the authorities, including the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, confirmed the order of cancellation of the assignment. The main contentions of the appellant therein were that, the Act came into existence in the year 1978 and therefore, it has no retrospective operation. Alienation made prior to the Act cannot be set aside. Adverse possession was also pleaded. Per contra, it was the contention of the State that the prohibition for alienation of assigned land always remained and therefore, limitation would not run against the Government, when it was sold. It was further contended that as the alienation was in contravention of rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code, the appellant therein does not get any title to the land. The plea of adverse possession was also repudiated on the ground that adverse possession does not arise against the State.
Madras High Court Cites 105 - Cited by 5 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Ram Ujagar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Secondary ... on 19 July, 2018

In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu and R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka , this Court had held that economic empowerment is a fundamental right to the poor and the State is enjoined under Articles 15(3), 46 and 39 to provide them opportunities. Thus, education, employment and economic empowerment are some of the programmes, the State has evolved and also provided reservation in admission into educational institutions, or in case of other economic benefits under Articles 15(4) and 46, or in appointment to an office or a post under the State under Article 16(4). Therefore, when a member is transplanted into the Dalits, Tribes and OBCs, he/she must of necessity also undergo have had same the handicaps, and must have been subject to the same disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings so as to entitle the candidate to avail the facility of reservation. A candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in forward caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in backward caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) and 16(4), as the case may be. Acquisition of the Status of Scheduled Caste etc. by voluntary mobility into these categories would play fraud on the Constitution, and would frustrate the benign constitutional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 5 - I Ali - Full Document

Institute Of Human Behaviour & Allied ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 March, 2012

"32. When the property was a vacant land before the alleged construction has been put up, to show open and hostile possession which could alone in law constitutes adverse IA Nos.4518 & 8011/2006 in CS(OS) No.670/2006 150 possession to the State, some concrete details of the date of absolute and exclusive occupation, nature of occupation with proof thereof would be absolutely necessary and a mere bald assertions cannot by themselves be a substitute for concrete proof required of open and hostile possession. The person claiming adverse possession as against the State must disclaim the State's title and plead this hostile claim to the knowledge of the State and that the State had not taken any action within the prescribed period. It is only in such circumstances that the possession would become adverse. The pleadings and proof have to be clear and cogent. (Ref. MANU/SC/0805/1995 : (1995)6SCC309 . R. Changevarappa v. State of Karnataka; MANU/SC/0766/1997 :
Delhi High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 4 - G Mittal - Full Document

R. Ramanathan And Ors. vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By ... on 21 March, 1997

549, Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka . According to the learned Government Advocate, any alienation by the assignee Adi Dravidars is also violates the Constitutional objectives. In , the Apex Court considered as to whether the alienation of Government Lands allotted to the Scheduled Castes are in violation of the Constitutional objectives under Articles 39(b) and 46. On the facts of these cases, the Apex Court held that economic empowerment to Adi Dravidars and the power as a part of distributive justice is a fundamental right and the alienation is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act being violative of the constitutional scheme of economic empowerment to accord equality of status, dignity of persons and economic empowerment.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Abhishek Yadav vs Paspati Devi on 25 September, 2020

17. The facts of R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka [(1995) 6 SCC 309] are similar to the case at hand. In this case, this Court observed as 11 under: (SCC p. 314, para 11) "11. The question then is whether the appellant has perfected his title by adverse possession. It is seen that a contention was raised before the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant having remained in possession from 1968, he perfected his title by adverse possession. But the crucial facts to constitute adverse possession have not been pleaded. Admittedly the appellant came into possession by a derivative title from the original grantee. It is seen that the original grantee has no right to alienate the land. Therefore, having come into possession under colour of title from original grantee, if the appellant intends to plead adverse possession as against the State, he must disclaim his title and plead his hostile claim to the knowledge of the State and that the State had not taken any action thereon within the prescribed period. Thereby, the appellant's possession would become adverse. No such stand was taken nor evidence has been adduced in this behalf. The counsel in fairness, despite his research, is unable to bring to our notice any such plea having been taken by the appellant."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K P Deo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next