Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.39 seconds)

S: 1. Sri Siddarooda Ashrama vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14 December, 2018

in question and the revenue officers i.e., Tahsildar and Asst. Commissioner, in proceedings with-regard to the mutation entries and entries in the record of rights of the property in question cannot confer title to the land in question and the order passed by the Revenue Officers under Ex.P.5, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are not conferring the title of the property in question, in-favour of claimants 2 to 8, has placed the reliance on the ruling reported in (1) ILR 2005 KAR 60 (in the case of J.M. Narayana and others Vs. Corporation of the City of Bengaluru, By its Commissioner Officer, Bengaluru and others; (2) 2006(4) Karnataka Law Journal 330 (in the case of Smt. Papamma Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and others; (3) ILR 1998 KAR 1 (S.C.)
Bangalore District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M Govardhan S/O.M Hanumanna Age 60 Years vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Deputy ... on 11 August, 2023

18. Learned counsel for appellant also contended that there is no question of plaintiff challenging the order of defendant No.2 dated 14.02.2000, since the defendants have no authority to decide the title of the parties. The same contention was also raised before both the Court below with reference to the judgment of this Court reported in Smt. Papamma vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 5777. There cannot be any dispute to the principle of law enunciated in the said judgment that revenue authorities have no power to decide the issue of title over the property. In the present case, the proceedings that took place before defendant No.2 is with respect to the correctness of entries recorded in Ex.D.1. In that context of the matter, defendant No.2 has incidentally referred with source of title of plaintiff's vendor in recording his
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1