Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.69 seconds)
Smt.K.Santhakamani Hyd 19 Others vs Govt Of A.P Hyd 8 Others on 2 June, 2021 cites

Dr. G. Suryanarayana Murthy vs The Govt. Of A.P. Education Dept., Rep., ... on 27 October, 2006

In Ch.Suryanarayana Murthy (2 Supra), a learned Single Judge of the A.P.High Court considered an identical issue. In that case the land owners had filed O.P.No.69 and 92 of 1986 against certain persons before the Special Tribunal constituted under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the said O.Ps were decreed on 26.6.1989. Before that event, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued notifications on 12.5.1986 and 28.7.1986 under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956. The Court rejected the plea of the State that the notifications under the Act ought to be sustained observing as under:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Jonnalagadda Samrajyam And Ors. vs Registrar, The Special Court ... on 23 August, 2006

155. This was reiterated in Jonnalagadda Samrajyam (3 supra) and it was declared that Rule 15 in particular deals with the procedure for ::56:: MSR,J & TVK,J wp_35061_1997&batch taking possession of the land grabbed by the grabber; that the Act is a self-contained code taking care of the right as well as the remedy; that jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal/Special Court, is exclusive and it ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of the alleged act of land grabbing; the Special Tribunal/Court under the Act is competent to decide and determine the questions as regards title, or right to, lawful possession of the land alleged to have been grabbed;
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 40 - Cited by 11 - G Chandraiah - Full Document

S.V. Narasimhulu Naidu And Another vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 30 April, 2013

157. The purpose of amended Rule is to discontinue from 25.8.2012 the existing scheme as to execution of the orders of the Court/Tribunal, through the Revenue Divisional Officer, insofar as private lands are concerned. Thus, the execution of any decision of Court/Tribunal so far as Government lands are concerned continues with the RDO, but has only been amended from 25.8.2012 so far as private lands, that all decisions of the Court/Tribunal are now made executable through the civil Court under the provisions of the Code of ::57:: MSR,J & TVK,J wp_35061_1997&batch Civil Procedure, 1908. (See S.V. Narasimhulu Naidu and Ors. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors4.)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967

238. We have already held that the Society was not issued notice by the State Government /Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad while issuing these notifications even though they were aware that the Society was the owner of the land, that the notifications dt.12.12.1991 and 20.3.1992 had several other defects such as the Survey Numbers and Town Survey Numbers, Village name not being mentioned, that they were issued in bad faith and in colorable exercise of power under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 to supersede the judgment dt.15.9.1989 in LGC No. 2 of 1988 of the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, contrary to the policy of the said Act to protect innocent land owners from the land mafia. On account of non- issuance of notice to the Society which is mandatory to be issued under the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Sec.3 of the A.P.Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956, the said notifications ::91:: MSR,J & TVK,J wp_35061_1997&batch are null and void ab initio as per the decision in Binapani Dei (7 Supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1001 - J C Shah - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh & Ors on 25 October, 1979

"23. It is well settled that use of power for a purpose different from the one for which power is conferred is colourable exercise of power. Statutory and public power is trust and the authority on whom such power is conferred is accountable for its exercise. Fraud on power voids the action of the authority [Gurdial Singh (9 supra) (Greater Noida Industrial Devlopment Authority v. Devender Kumar16]. Mala fides can be inferred from undisputed facts even without naming a particular officer and even without positive evidence17. In the present case, abuse of power in dealing with the matter by the functionaries of the State is more than clear as rightly found by the High Court. Challenge to acquisition may not be confined to those who have not accepted the amount of compensation or consideration. Once such order/transaction is vitiated there could be no estoppel on the ground that compensation/consideration has been received, as the land loser has little choice in the face of acquisition (13 supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 393 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Gujarat Electricity Board vs Girdharlal Motilal And Anr on 6 August, 1968

In Gujarat Electricity Board v. Girdharlal Motilal12, the Supreme Court held that in cases of expropriatory statutes if the legislature prescribes a particular mode of exercise of power to interfere with property rights, that power should be exercised only in that manner and in no other way. Dealing with the power conferred under the Electricity Act,1910 to acquire the property of a licensee under the said Act by issuing proper notice, the Supreme Court explained:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 52 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next