Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 125 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Mandal Revenue Officer vs Goundla Venkaiah & Anr on 6 January, 2010

Radha Soami Satsang Beas vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy ... on 8 September, 2022

21. If the land was settled in the name of Raghu Nath Das before vesting and he was in cultivating possession of the land, he should have been accepted as tenant, rent roll prepared in his name, rent accepted and rent receipt would have been issued in his name. There is no such evidence on record. On the contrary, the evidences are to the effect that the said land was never recorded in the name of Raghu Nath Das but in the name of anaabad Bihar Sarkar and the possession of Raghu Nath Das has been shown to be illegal. This continued in both the surveys of 1962-63 and 1983. Land encroachment proceedings were drawn against the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest. Dropping of any encroachment proceeding cannot be regarded as admission on the part of the State of acquiesce to adverse possession, as held in Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah (supra).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G K Choudhary - Full Document

Mini vs Assistant Executive Engineer Pwd Roads on 23 February, 2022

11. Coming to the facts of this case, portion of National Highway was now encroached by the petitioners taking advantage of the construction of a new road by acquiring properties adjacent to the said road. A vital point to be noted herein is that the O.P(C).No.277/2022 13 encroached area is nothing but part of earlier existed National Highway, which was constructed by the Government after acquiring property by paying adequate consideration for the use of public in general. Thereafter, the road was widened and thereby the earlier road existed abutting the same. Later the same was encroached upon by the petitioners herein. Such encroachments should be viewed seriously and this Court is duty bound to address the issue with extreme care and caution as observed by the Apex Court in Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah & anr.'s case (supra).
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Moksh Dham Sewa Vikas Samiti(Regd.) & ... vs Ashok Sharma & Ors. on 15 May, 2019

4. Since then, pleadings in the suit have been completed. The suit came up before this Court on 14th January, 2019 for framing of issues when on going through the plaint and having found the title claimed by the plaintiffs to be incongruous, it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs as to how the plaintiff no.1 Society incorporated on 16th February, 2005 could claim title since 1947. Though the counsel for the plaintiffs on that date stated that the plaintiff no.1 Society was a successor of Kalkaji Welfare Association in existence since 1965 and before that it was a property of "few people" but it was observed that neither any sale deed from the "few people" in favour of Kalkaji Welfare Association nor any sale deed from Kalkaji Welfare Association in favour of the plaintiff no.1 Society had been pleaded. The counsel for the plaintiffs then argued that the plaintiffs claim title by adverse possession. However attention of the counsel for the plaintiffs was invited to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779, Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah (2010) 2 SCC 461 and Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496 holding that the pleas of lawful title and title by adverse possession are mutually inconsistent, antithetical and cannot be taken together or even alternatively. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiffs was also invited to Sections 389 to 391 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation CS(OS) 469/2016 Page 5 of 12 Act, 1957 relating to burial grounds. On request of the counsel for the plaintiffs, the hearing was adjourned.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next