Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.60 seconds)

Smt.Sujatha And 9 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 5 June, 2023

21. As held by Apex Court in Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 2 and Yatam Bangaru Venkamma and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life, which includes right to livelihood. Time and again the Courts not only held that Article 21 is one of the great silences of the Constitution. The right to livelihood cannot be subjected to individual fancies of the persons in authority. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. An important facet of that right is the right to livelihood, because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as 2 AIR 1986 SC 180 3 2020 (5) ALD 601 (AP) 16 a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. The right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation is enshrined in Article 21 and derives its life breadth from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at least, therefore, it must include the right to live with human dignity, the right to take any action which will deprive a person of enjoyment of basic right to live with dignity as an integral part of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Smt.Sujatha vs The State Of Telangana on 5 June, 2023

21. As held by Apex Court in Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 2 and Yatam Bangaru Venkamma and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life, which includes right to livelihood. Time and again the Courts not only held that Article 21 is one of the great silences of the Constitution. The right to livelihood cannot be subjected to individual fancies of the persons in authority. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. An important facet of that right is the right to livelihood, because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as 2 AIR 1986 SC 180 3 2020 (5) ALD 601 (AP) 16 a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. The right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation is enshrined in Article 21 and derives its life breadth from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at least, therefore, it must include the right to live with human dignity, the right to take any action which will deprive a person of enjoyment of basic right to live with dignity as an integral part of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Mudragada Appala Narayana vs The State Of Ap on 27 September, 2022

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from his cultivating land situated in survey no.494-6 admeasuring to the extent of Ac.3.00cents situated at Reddipalli village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without following the procedure established by the law as observed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Yatam Bangaru Venkamma and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020 Law Suit (AP) 836 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the authorities not to interfere over the possession of the petitioner's land to an extent Ac.3.00cents situated at Reddipalli village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without following the procedure established by the law and further declare the action of the authorities in cutting down 200 teak trees, 11 coconut trees, mango tope, cashew tree with proclainer forcefully having no manner in right, illegal duly ordering to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - D Ramesh - Full Document
1