Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.56 seconds)

R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & ... on 8 October, 2003

9 I have perused the document the award bearing no. 28­ B/1970­1971 by which the land of khasra no. 583/196 village Khichripur has been acquired by the Government of India. The Suit no. 505/10 Page 7 of 10 8 documents such as Khatuni relied upon by the plaintiff pertains to the year 1971­1972. The land has been acquired in the same year. After acquisition of the land, possession has been handed over to the defendant u/s 22 (1) of the DDA Act vide notification no. F (8) (75) L and B dated 17.01.1976. Since 1976, the land is stated to be in the possession of the DDA. The document relied upon by the plaintiff are not the documents of title as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title RVE Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arupnigu Viswesara Swami and V P Temple and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4548. It may be possible that the revenue record, by the Revenue Authority, has not been up dated with the consultation of the concerned authority who has acquired the land. The land has been shown in revenue record continuously in the name of Ram Rikh and Chattar Singh, both sons of Late Jaswant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs has also argued that SDM concerned has rectified the mistake done by the revenue officers, by showing the land of Khasra No. 583/196, measuring 5 bighas and 5 biswas in favour of the Government, by re­ entry vide order dated 12.03.2010 in favour of plaintiff. But it reveals that the SDM concerned has not issued any notice to the Central Government or the DDA to rectify the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 830 - Full Document

Fidelity Growth Fund (P) Ltd. And Anr. vs S. Partap Singh And Ors. on 18 January, 1996

In a case of Fidelity Growth Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. S. Paratap Singh & Ors. 61 (1996) DLT 346, it was held that plaintiffs were prima facie found in settled possession of property having right to occupy the same. The ad­interim injunction was granted. In case titled "Premji Ratansay Shah & Ors. V/s. UOI & Ors., JT 1994 (6) SC 565", Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no injunction can be granted in favour of encroachment on public land and against the true owner. 8 The plaintiff stated that he is the owner of the suit property by law of inheritance and also relied upon the document, the khatuni for the year 1971­1972, Khatuni for the year 1977­1978, Khatuni for the year 1984­1985 as well as khasra girdhari for the year 1987­1988. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the award bearing no. 28­B/1970­1971 vide which the khasra no. 583/196 village Khichripur has been acquired.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - S K Mahajan - Full Document

Bikramjit Kaur Wd/O Harbans Singh vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co Ltd., on 9 April, 2010

6 It is well established law that in order to get relief of ad­ interim injunction, the plaintiffs have to show, firstly, that there exists a prima facie case in their favour; secondly that balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs; and thirdly, that plaintiff's would suffer irreperable loss if ad­interim injunction is not granted to them. 7 In the cases, Bikramjit Singh Vs. LIC etc.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1