Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 104 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 20 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Raj Kumar Brijender Singh And Ors on 22 April, 2004
In State of H.P. v. Rajkumar Brijender Singh this
Court held that in the absence of any special
circumstances a delay of 15 years in suo motu exercise
of revisional power was impermissible as the delay was
unduly long and unexplained. This Court observed: (SCC
pp. 588-89, para 6)
"6. We are now left with the second question
which was raised by the respondents before the High
Court, namely, the delayed exercise of the power
under sub-section (3) of Section 20. As indicated
above, the Financial Commissioner exercised the
Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company ... vs District Board Bhojpur And Ors on 12 March, 1992
30. We may also refer to the decision of this Court
in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board,
Bhojpur wherein the Court explained the legal position
as under: (SCC pp. 602-03, para 13)
"13. The rule which says that the Court may not
enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of
law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper
exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon
its own facts. It will all depend on what the breach of
the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are
and how delay arose. The principle on which the
relief to the party on the grounds of laches or delay
is denied is that the rights which have accrued to
others by reason of the delay in filing the petition
should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is
a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test
to determine delay in such cases is that the
petitioner should come to the writ court before a
parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is
Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors vs Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors on 2 September, 2009
14. It is also relevant to cite the declaration of law made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRI.
SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL AND OTHERS Vs.
SRI BALASAHEB TUKARAMA SHEVALE AND OTHERS
reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352 at paragraphs 11 to 13 held as
follows:
Section 34 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
S.B. Gurbaksh Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 January, 1976
In one of the earlier decisions of this Court
in S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India , this Court
held that exercise of suo motu power of revision must
also be within a reasonable time and that any
unreasonable delay in the exercise may affect the