Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
C.Sundaran vs State Of Kerala on 1 June, 1992
- 1989 (2) KLT 806 the question which arose was whether
a defeated claimant has any right to exercise option within
R.S.A.Nos.808 & 816 of 2003 and
C.R.P.No.204 of 2004
-: 30 :-
the meaning of sub Sec. 6 of Sec. 85. On that point It was
held by this Court that he had no such right and the right of
option can be exercised only by a declarant. The decision
in Sundaran v. State of Kerala (supra) was followed by
the Division Bench in Kunhalan Hajee and others v.
State of Kerala and others [1994 (2) KLJ 366].
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty And Anr vs Parambur Mariakutty Umma And Others on 8 February, 2000
46. The learned counsel for the appellants in the two
RSAs who are the respondents in the Civil Revision Petition
has referred to various decisions of this Court and also of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court to canvass for the position that
unless the certificate of purchase is proved to have been
obtained by fraud or collusion, the conclusiveness attached
to the purchase certificates cannot be taken away. One
such decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in
Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty and Another v.
Parambur Mariakutty Umma and Others - (2000) 2
SCC 417. There it was held by the Apex Court :-
Section 4 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
P.P.Kunhikrishna Kurup vs The District Collector
In support of that submission the learned counsel has relied
upon a decision of this Court in Bhaskara Kurup v.
District Collector - 1982 KLT 656 where it was held
that there is no provision in Rule 29 of the Land Reforms
(Ceiling) Rules, 1970 (Kerala) empowering the collector to
cancel the assignment made by the Taluk Land Board.
There is no document to show that any notice was issued to
R.S.A.Nos.808 & 816 of 2003 and
C.R.P.No.204 of 2004
-: 42 :-
the claimants (respondents in the Civil Revision Petition)
that they were given notice of the so called taking over of
possession of the respective lands pursuant to the order
earlier passed by the Taluk Land Board. It has already
been found by this Court on two earlier occasions that no
document could be produced or shown to prove the actual
taking over of possession of the property or to show the
actual handing over of possession of the same to the
assignees. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellants in the Second Appeal that no objection
was raised by anybody with regard to the claim made by
Aminakutty to whom four acres of land was re-conveyed
and to Ummar, and Chekkutty to whom 1.30 acres of land
was re-conveyed. Though the revision petitioner attacks
handing over of possession to Parameswaran Namboodiri
and Damodaran Namboodiri, no challenge was made with
regard to the two plots which were similarly ordered to be
re-conveyed to Aminakutty, Ummar and Chekkutty. Those
R.S.A.Nos.808 & 816 of 2003 and
C.R.P.No.204 of 2004
-: 43 :-
are also matters which would speak volumes, the learned
counsel for the respondents in the CRP submits.