Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 22 February, 2001

State Of A.P. vs A.P.State Wakf Board . on 7 February, 2022

96. Mr. Ahmadi referred to an order passed by this Court on May 8, 2012 and July 26, 2013 to contend that such orders do not foreclose the right of the Board to recover Wakf lands. However, referring to a judgment of this Court reported as K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 56, Mr. Ahmadi has submitted that once it is determined that the possession of the property is contrary to law, the normal relief is to hand over the possession of the entire land to the rightful owner but if construction has been carried out on a part of the land, the rightful owner becomes entitled to receive compensation in terms of the market value of the land which has been utilized for construction and is entitled to recover possession of the remaining part of the land which is vacant. It was further pointed out that the Government illegally allotted 1226 acres and 29 guntas to various parties out of which allotees have utilized 818 acres and 9 guntas. Thus, 428 acres and 3 guntas of land is still lying vacant. The total area which is lying vacant and which belongs to the Wakf thus comes out to be 836 acres and 23 guntas. Hence, a direction has been sought from this Court to direct the Wakf Tribunal to order the appellants in all the matters to handover possession of the vacant part of the 56 (2016) 3 SCC 422 86 property and to pay compensation to the Wakf Board at the market value for the part of the property utilized in construction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 166 - Cited by 31 - H Gupta - Full Document

Smt. Manjula And Ors. vs The Chief Minister, Government Of ... on 8 April, 2004

The necessary facts in brief are that the appellants are the residents of the layout formed in Sy. No. 1 of Vijayashreepura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore. They purchased the properties and constructed residential houses long back, They had filed Writ Petition Nos. 9203 to 9224 of 2000, which were clubbed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed by a common order dated 28-5-2001. It is stated that K.B. Ramachandraraje Urs, claiming to be the owner of the property, questioned the acquisition proceedings wherein number of persons claiming to be the tenants of the said land had made applications for grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal, after hearing, held that the property is a Government land. The same was challenged by KB. Ramachandraraje Urs in W.P, Nos. 14726 and 31449 of 1994, The writ petitions were allowed on 22-2-2001 (K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs v. State of Karnataka and Ors.2002(3) Kar. L.J. 385 : AIR 2000 Kant. 512). Writ Appeal No. 1297 of 2001 and connected cases were filed. Interim order of stay was granted. The main contention is that persons who are affected were not made parties in W.P. No. 23429 of 1998, An interim order was passed for demolition, disconnection and others. However, S.L.P. Nos. 8375 and 8714 of 2000 were filed, wherein interim orders of stay have been granted. The further case of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge without going into the merits of the case dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants by a common order dated 28-5-2001. Therefore, it is prayed that the said order may be set aside.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - V G Sabhahit - Full Document

Guddi vs State Of U.P.Thr,Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of ... on 5 March, 2018

22. As regard the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.B. Ramachandra Raje (supra), referred to by the petitioner, in the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court is not bound by any strict rule of limitation and if substantial issues of public importance touching upon the fairness of governmental action do arise, the delayed approach to reach the Court will not stand in the way of the exercise of jurisdiction. The said judgment is also clearly distinguishable inasmuch as here in the instant case the conduct of the petitioners in sitting over the matter for a period of almost four decades and not agitating for their rights and now coming forward in the year 2016 to contest the matter on technicalities without explaining the delay and laches of almost 40 years from the date when actual physical possession was taken and development over the said land has already taken place, renders the petition liable to be dismissed for gross delay and laches.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 21 September, 2022

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to three judgments of the Apex Court on the issue of delay. The three judgments are in the case of M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited Vs. District Board, Bhojpur and Others, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 598 (Para 13), in the case of K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 422 (Para 28) and in the case of Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Another Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and Others, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 608 (Para 25).
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M Prasad - Full Document
1   2 Next