Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing The Vyalikaval House Building ... vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007

Reserved On 25.11.2024 Delivered On ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu

(33)Learned counsels for the writ petitioners relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society rep.by its Secretary Vs. V.Chandrappa and Others [2007 [9] SCC 304]. The said judgment is quite inappropriate to the factual situation of this case. That was a case where the land acquisition proceedings were earlier quashed at the instance of one of the land owners and it was held that the whole acquisition proceedings stood vitiated on account of fraud. When the same Notification was challenged by another person, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined whether the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It was in the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings should be quashed even though the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with a delay.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Sri D V Krishnappa vs Seetharam on 5 March, 2020

63. Learned counsel for the respondents next placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, By Its Secretary vs. Chandrappa & others, [(2007) 9 SCC 304] (Vyalikaval House Building Co- operative Society) to contend that when there is mala fides or fraud alleged and the acquisition proceedings are vitiated, delay and laches in filing the writ petition would not be a relevant consideration in entertaining the writ petition. In the said case, learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition challenging the acquisition on the ground of delay and laches. But the Division Bench had held that the house building Society therein had committed several irregularities in the -: 87 :- acquisition process and hence, the question of delay would not come in the way of considering the plea of fraud in the matter of acquisition of land for the benefit of said Society and had allowed the writ petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the said judgment and held that the acquisition Notifications, under which the land sought to be acquired in the said case were vitiated and therefore, the acquisition was held to be illegal in toto as there was mala fides and the acquisition was not for public purpose. In the circumstances, it was held that when the entire acquisition was vitiated on account of mala fides, nothing remains further. Therefore, despite delay and laches in assailing the acquisition process, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such a plea was not maintainable, as by then the entire acquisition process had been held to be illegal and therefore, the benefit of the judgment passed earlier in respect of the acquisition was given to the subsequent writ petitions. But, we find that the said judgment is not applicable as in the present case in respect of the respondent Society, the entire acquisition of lands in their entirety has not been quashed. They have been quashed only in the case of Geetha Devi Shah and -: 88 :- P.Ramaiah only to the extent of their lands both by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah had approached this Court as early as in the year 1991-92. Therefore, their cases were considered on merits and the acquisition was quashed insofar as their lands only were concerned. The said judgment of the Division Bench was upheld in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited only insofar as the lands belonging to Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah were concerned.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri N Ramaraju vs The Principal Secretary Revenue ... on 2 August, 2021

In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 44 'HMT HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY Vs. SYED KHADAR' 1995(2) SCC 677, 'V.PURUSHOTTAM RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA' (2001) 10 SCC 305, 'ISWAR DUTT Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR', 2005 AIR SCW 3578, 'VYALIKAVAL HOUSING SOCIETY Vs. CHANDRAPPA', AIR 2007 SC 1151, 'M/s. ROYAL ORCHIDS Vs. JAYARAMA REDDY', (2011) 11 SCALE 239, 'BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. STATE', AIR 2012 SC 1395.
Karnataka High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Muniyappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9 November, 2022

In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance ha been placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'HMT HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. SYED KHADER AND OTHERS', (1995) 2 SCC 677, 'VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY VS. V.CHANDRAPPA AND OTHERS', ILR 2007 KAR 1810, 'BABU RAM AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER', (2009) 10 SC 115 and 'TUKARAM KANA JOSHI AND ORS. THR.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next