Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.59 seconds)

Vidaya Devi vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 January, 2020

In Vidya Devi (supra) a plea was taken by the State that since the State was in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to "adverse" possession. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the 101 property of its own citizens. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that the appellants therein with respect to whose lands the State had claimed adverse possession were illiterate persons from the rural area and they were deprived of their private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law and consequently invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, the State was directed to pay compensation to the appellant therein. In the present case, the State is not setting any plea of adverse possession or claim title by way of adverse possession to the property of a citizen or individual. The respondents are the lessees/DKT patta holders of the land, which admittedly belong to the State. Consequently, on the resumption of the land in terms of the lease/DKT patta granted to the respondents or their predecessors, it cannot be said that the State is acting contrary to law and depriving the respondents of their rights to property or compensation inasmuch as the respondents have been or/are being granted compensation for resumption of the lands in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307,. dated.23.12.1993 as also under the Orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.561 of 2007, dated 17.07.2008 and in W.P.No.26439 of 2008, dated 15.12.2008.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 220 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Aligarh Development Authority vs Megh Singh on 21 May, 2020

In Megh Singh (supra) no award was passed either under 1894 Act or under 2013 Act. The provisions of Section 24 of 2013 Act were interpreted. The facts of the present case are different and the reliance placed on the said judgment is misconceived. Obvious reason is that for 102 the applicability of the Act 1894 or 2013 for no award being passed and the proceedings being lapsed, the proceedings must have been taken under the Act 1894. Here, the respondents' case is that the acquisition should have been taken under that Act. They are claiming to be the owners where as they are not the owners but the DKT pattaholders and the land has been resumed by the State.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - Full Document
1