Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 398 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing N Padmamma And Ors vs S.Ramakrishna Reddy & Ors on 16 May, 2008

State Of H.P. And Others vs Jodha And Others on 11 June, 2024

25. Concluding that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative[Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai 2005 Supp (3) SCR 388; N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. v. State of Uttar ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2024 20:31:25 :::CIS 32 Pradesh &Ors. 2011 (12) SCR 191; and JilubhaiNanbhaiKahchar v. State of Gujarat 1994 Supp (1) SCR 807.] of both their human right and constitutional .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. & Ors vs Kartar Chand & Ors on 25 June, 2024

25. Concluding that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative[Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai 2005 Supp (3) SCR 388; N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. 2011 (12) SCR 191; and JilubhaiNanbhaiKahchar v. State of Gujarat 1994 Supp (1) SCR 807.] of both their human right and constitutional right under Article 3 00-A, this court allowed the appeal.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukthesab vs Mehaboobsab on 14 March, 2023

18. As far as contention based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N.Padmamma and Others Vs. Ramakrishna Reddy and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2834, this Court is of the view that the said judgment is rendered interpreting the provisions of the of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The discussion in that case is around Section 10 of the said Act. In this case, the parties are claiming right under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Under Section 24 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the tenancy right is heritable. Hence, the ratio laid down in the said case cannot be made applicable here.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Babubhai Kurjibhai Radadiya vs Surat Municipal Corporation & 2 on 25 August, 2014

In  N.   Padmamma   and   others   v.   S.   Ramakrishna  Reddy and others, 2008 (15) SCC 517 the Apex Court held  Page 13 of 61 74 of 122 C/LPA/1263/2011 JUDGMENT that   "right   of   property"   is   a   human   right   as   also   a  constitutional   right   and   the   same   cannot   be   taken   away  except   in   accordance   with   law.   Article   300­A   of   the  Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act  seeking to divest such right, keeping in view the provisions  of Article 300­A, must be strictly construed. 6.3 It   is   submitted   by   learned   Senior   Advocate   Mr.  Marshall   that   Notification   dated   02.09.2004   was   issued  without   any   application   of   mind.   Before   issuing   the  impugned  Notification,  the Government  had not arrived  to  any proper satisfaction, based on relevant materials, that it  was necessary to de­reserve the lands "for the purposes of  post and telegraph" and fresh re­reserve it "for the purpose  of SMC". It is submitted that the details as to on what basis  the   lands   were   re­reserved   was   not   even   reflected   in   the  affidavit­in­reply  filed  by the State Government.  Therefore,  the entire exercise was without any application of mind and  deserves   to   be   set   aside.   In   support   of   this   submission,  reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   rendered   in  Bhikubhai  Vithalbhai Patel's case (supra) wherein, it is held that before  issuing   the   Notification   for   reservation,   formation   of   an  opinion is necessary. It was also submitted that it makes no  difference whether the variation is under Section 17 or 19 of  Page 14 of 61 75 of 122 C/LPA/1263/2011 JUDGMENT the TP Act since the exercise of powers u/s.19 of the TP Act  would   apply   with   greater   force.   It   would   also   make   no  difference  if the variation  was by the State itself or at the  instance of development authority.
Gujarat High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Babubhai Kurjibhai Radadiya vs Surat Municipal Corporation & 2 on 22 August, 2014

In  N.   Padmamma   and   others   v.   S.   Ramakrishna  Reddy and others, 2008 (15) SCC 517 the Apex Court held  Page 13 of 61 74 of 122 C/LPA/1263/2011 JUDGMENT that   "right   of   property"   is   a   human   right   as   also   a  constitutional   right   and   the   same   cannot   be   taken   away  except   in   accordance   with   law.   Article   300­A   of   the  Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act  seeking to divest such right, keeping in view the provisions  of Article 300­A, must be strictly construed. 6.3 It   is   submitted   by   learned   Senior   Advocate   Mr.  Marshall   that   Notification   dated   02.09.2004   was   issued  without   any   application   of   mind.   Before   issuing   the  impugned  Notification,  the Government  had not arrived  to  any proper satisfaction, based on relevant materials, that it  was necessary to de­reserve the lands "for the purposes of  post and telegraph" and fresh re­reserve it "for the purpose  of SMC". It is submitted that the details as to on what basis  the   lands   were   re­reserved   was   not   even   reflected   in   the  affidavit­in­reply  filed  by the State Government.  Therefore,  the entire exercise was without any application of mind and  deserves   to   be   set   aside.   In   support   of   this   submission,  reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   rendered   in  Bhikubhai  Vithalbhai Patel's case (supra) wherein, it is held that before  issuing   the   Notification   for   reservation,   formation   of   an  opinion is necessary. It was also submitted that it makes no  difference whether the variation is under Section 17 or 19 of  Page 14 of 61 75 of 122 C/LPA/1263/2011 JUDGMENT the TP Act since the exercise of powers u/s.19 of the TP Act  would   apply   with   greater   force.   It   would   also   make   no  difference  if the variation  was by the State itself or at the  instance of development authority.
Gujarat High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.B.Basnett (D) Thr. Lrs. vs The Collector on 2 March, 2020

“ 6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.” (emphasis originally supplied) 11 In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517, this Courtheld that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next