Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
Kudiyerupor Nala Sangam Reg. No. 129/94 ... vs The Commissioner, Land Assignment ... on 13 March, 2002 cites

Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000

In support of the said submission, the learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the decision (KUNHAYAMMED AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER). On the facts, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that even though the communication of the Member Secretary, C.M.D.A., dated 27.9.2001 refers to the proposed inner circular corridor is passing through the Survey No. 239, in fact, the said railway corridor passes on the southern end of the land. The land which was proposed for allotment of the members of the petitioner Sangam in S. No. 239/2 is not affected by the proposed railway line.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 1157 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973

`If they have any genuine grievance about the feasibility of the offer made by the Government on any ground, the proper course would be to have approached the learned single Judge himself. Whatever grounds which are now pleaded before us namely, that there was no adequate space available for allotment, that there was no adequate space available for allotment, that the Government had not placed all the relevant facts about the actual topography of the land or that the Government had played fraud on the court etc., are all matters which should be have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge himself either by way of Review or for clarification. If there is any violation of or non-compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge, there are other remedies open to the appellants. Of the face of the allegations projected before us, it will not be in consonance with the judicial decorum to entertain the above appeal.' By the said observation, the Division Bench did not entertain the plea raised by the petitioner over the subsequent communication of C.M.D.A. dated 27.9.2001. The observation that the petitioners ought to have approached the learned Single Judge, in my view, does not mean that the petitioner Sangam is given opportunity to approach this Court by way of Review Application. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General once the Division Bench has passed the order dismissing the writ appeal, the order in the writ petitions shall merge with the order in the writ appeal and this court will have no jurisdiction to review the said order. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex court made in KUNSHAYANNED AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER "12.The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When decree or order passed by inferior Court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior Court as disposed of the lis before it either way - whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior Court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the Court, tribunal or the authority below. However, the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view."
Supreme Court of India Cites 573 - Cited by 999 - Full Document
1