Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.23 seconds)Section 10 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Balmokand Khatri Educational ... vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 14 February, 1996
14. The question as to how physical possession of land is to be taken, then was considered in Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust Vs. State of Punjab, 1996(4) SCC 212, wherein Court said in para 4 of the judgment as under:
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs A. Viswam (Dead) By Lrs on 9 February, 1996
15. The majority opinion of Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra) was considered in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A. Viswam, 1996 (8) SCC 259 wherein also a dispute of actual possession was raised. Court, relying on memorandum of Panchnama prepared by Land Acquisition Officer for taking possession of acquired land and also the letter written by respondent wherein he admitted title of respondent but sought allotment of an alternative site, held that there was no question of requesting for alternative site if according to respondents title still vested in him and has not been vested in the State by taking possession. Paras 9 and 10 of the judgment relevant for our purpose is reproduced as under:
M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 18 March, 1998
16. The next authority is Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujrat and others, 1998 (4) SCC 387. Therein, Court referred to Panchnama prepared by Deputy Collector showing that possession was taken and found it sufficient to hold that possession of land in question in that case was taken as contemplated under Act, 1894.
K.P. Sachidananda And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka, Revenue Department ... on 18 December, 2003
In P.K. Kalburqi Vs. State of Karnataka, 2005(12) SCC 489, Court referred to the observations of Hon'ble Bhagwati, J. in Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra) and said, when there is no crop or structure on the land, only symbolic possession would be taken.
Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi vs Lt.Governor,Govt.Of Nct Delhi & Ors on 15 September, 2009
In Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi Vs. Lt. Governor, Government of N.C.T. Delhi and others, 2009(10) SCC 501, Court after referring to earlier decisions, said, that while taking possession, symbolic and notional possession is not envisaged under the Act but the manner in which possession is taken must of necessity depend upon the facts of each case. Where a large area of land with a large number of owners is subject matter of possession, Court said, that, it would be impossible for Collector or Revenue officials to enter each bigha or biswa and take possession thereof. Pragmatic approach has to be adopted by Court. It further said:
Brij Pal Bhargava & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 23 February, 2011
19. Similarly in Brij Pal Bhargava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011(5) SCC 413 accepting possession Court upheld the issue of possession on the basis of possession receipts and said that mere fact that in revenue record there is no mutation or that erstwhile owner actually is still occupying acquired land would make no difference.
Banda Development Authy, Banda vs Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors on 26 April, 2011
20. After having a retrospect of earlier authorities, in Banda Development Authority, Bana Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(5) SCC 394, Court crystallized certain principles to determine when possession taken would be held to be actual physical possession by authorities and it reads as under: