Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 273 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala & Ors vs M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr on 5 May, 1997

I.Ravichandran @ Ravi Sam vs State Represented By on 4 January, 2013

In Bhaskaran Pillai's case, referred to above, it was the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, and it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. It was also observed that if the land was acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. Further, in the case of Keeravani Ammal, cited supra, the Supreme Court has held that mere claim of possession by the writ petitioners is not a foundation on which the relief granted could have been rested.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... vs Syed Akbar on 11 August, 1999

9. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in WP No.14062 of 1997, dated 4-7-1997 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirmalgiri, was deputed to enquire as to the existence of the land in question and its extent, who in turn submitted a report dated 11-9-1997, nearly after two months seven days from the date of the order of this Court, which was followed by the report of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition dated 29-9-1997. After considering the said reports, the Collector, Hyderabad District in his proceedings No.D4/ 2341/93, dated 18-10-1997 passed an order rejecting the request of the petitioner for re-assignment of the un-utilised land. On consideration, the learned single Judge found that the stand taken by the authorities in rejecting the request of the petitioner is quite incorrect. The learned single Judge took into consideration the decision in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) relied on by the authorities and found the same on facts has no application to the case on hand. The relevant portion of the above decision is extracted herein:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - V B Rao - Full Document

Jamubhai Keshavbhai & 17 vs Collector & 3 on 22 December, 2014

In State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai para 4 of the said judgment reads: (SCC p. 433) "4. In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the Page 41 of 50 C/SCA/6570/1998 CAV JUDGMENT land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilized for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Dattatraya Gopalrao Borkute (Dr.) vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 20 October, 2004

11. In that view of the manner we are of the view that the contentions raised in these petitions by the petitioners viz. That they are entitled to released of land as per Government resolution dated 10-10-1973 cannot be accepted. The same is no longer legal and valid resolution in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 48 of the Act. The said resolution does not take into consideration interpretation of Section 48 which the Supreme Court has placed on Section 48 of the Act. In view thereof, and in the absence of any other power to release land in favour of the original owner which has been vested in the State Government, we are of the view that the said G.R. Has no efficacy in law and no relief can be granted to the petitioners placing reliance upon the said G.R. Dated 10-10-1973.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - V C Daga - Full Document

Vasudev Kanchanlal Pandya & 15 vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 19 June, 2017

In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Syed Akbar  (Supra), this Court considered this very issue and held that,   once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be divested,   by virtue of Section 48  of the Act, nor can it be reconveyed to   the persons­ interested/tenure holders, and that therefore, the   Page 27 of 29 HC-NIC Page 27 of 29 Created On Thu Aug 17 23:01:51 IST 2017 C/SCA/16035/2013 CAV JUDGMENT question of restitution of possession to the tenure holder, does   not arise. (See also: Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC  1296;  Chandragaudaj     Ramgonda  Patil      v.   State   of    Maharashtra, (1996) 6 SCC 405; State of Kerala & Ors. v. M.   Bhaskaran   Pillai   &   Anr.,   AIR   1997   SC   2703;   Printers   (Mysore) .
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sahdev Prasad Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 9 November, 2022

In State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai [(1997) 5 SCC 432] para 4 of the said judgment reads: (SCC p. 433) "4. In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all -5- encumbrances. The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the directive principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - K P Deo - Full Document

M.R.Srinivasan vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 27 August, 2012

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said paragraph placed reliance on its earlier decision in State of Kerala Vs. M.Bhaskaran Pillai reported in 1997 [5] SCC 432. The said principle is not applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu wherein section 48-B of the Act was specifically introduced. The said position is also made very clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the very same decision in paragraph 16 which reads as here under:-
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - K N Basha - Full Document

Pendyala Subrahmanya Sastry vs Revenue Divisional Officer And Land ... on 25 March, 2003

16. Further, as observed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), when the land acquired by the Government for any public purpose is no more required for any public purpose and the Government intends to sell the same, such sale should be resorted to only through public auction and not by way of reconveyance or sale by negotiation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next