Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.75 seconds)
Between vs And on 11 May, 2026 cites

Lao-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, ... vs Mekala Pandu And Ors. on 9 March, 2004

In view of Mekala Pandu (supra) learned counsels for the writ petitioners submitted that after the order was passed calculating the compensation in terms of the judgment passed in the previous writ petitions, passing of the order determining the compensation gave a fresh cause of action to the writ petitioners and consequently they could file the fourth writ petition challenging the order dated 21.07.2010 and the previous judgment would 50 not come in the way of the writ petitioners. They supported the main judgment.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 52 - Cited by 85 - B S Reddy - Full Document

State Of U.P.&Ors vs Manohar on 15 December, 2004

"19. The facts of the present case reveal that the State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all those who are entitled. This arbitrary action, which is also violative of the appellants' prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause of action), undoubtedly warranted consideration, and intervention by the High Court, under its Article 226 jurisdiction. This Court, in Manohar [State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126] --a similar case where the name of the aggrieved had been deleted from revenue records leading to his dispossession from the land without payment of compensation held : (SCC pp. 128-29, paras 6-8) "6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the case projected before the court by the appellants is utterly untenable and not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least regard to being a welfare State. When we pointed out to the learned counsel that, at this stage at least, the State should be gracious enough to accept its mistake and promptly pay the compensation to the respondent, the State has taken an intractable attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be a just and reasonable claim of the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 60 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document
1