Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 2 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 18 May, 2010
4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petition,
rejected the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction in the Tahsildar,
based on Government orders that had been issued which clarified the
matter. However, he found in favour of the writ petitioners on the other
two grounds of challenge based on the judgments of this Court in
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala - [2014 (4) KLT 371];
Banerjee Memorial Club v. Taluk Tahsildar - [2016 (1) KLT 241];
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala - [2018 (2) KLT 369] and
Shahul Hassan Musaliyar T.K. v. State of Kerala and Others - [2015
(4) KHC 615] and held that, prior to invoking the power to
summarily evict under Rule 11 of the Rules, the Government was
required to demonstrate that it was in legal possession of the land and
that the occupier of the land was in unauthorised occupation.
Differentiating between the concepts of 'legal possession' and 'actual
W.A.No.2227/19
& 1435/20 & :: 9 ::
Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905
Section 7 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956
Banerji Memorial Club vs Taluk Tahsildar Trichur And Others on 16 October, 2008
2025:KER:52872
admit that the land in question is Government land but contend that they
have been in possession pursuant to a valid permission for possession, as
was the case in Banerjee Memorial Club (supra) and Shahul Hassan
Musaliyar (supra). On the other hand, the person in actual possession
could claim that he had a valid title over the property and that his actual
possession merged with legal possession, as in the case of Harrisons
Malayalam Ltd. (M/s.)
Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr on 16 March, 1982
In Govt. of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another -
[1982 (2) SCC 134], the Court was concerned with three items [groups] of
property, alleged to have been acquired by the Government of the Nizam of
Hyderabad for the benefit of Osmania University, along with larger extents
of lands. The University instituted a suit which was rejected, finding the
plaintiff having failed to prove possession within 12 years before the filing of
the suit. Later, at the instance of the University the Thahsildar took steps
for summary eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act,
1905. The resultant order of eviction passed, after being unsuccessfully
challenged before the statutory authorities was before the High Court. The
learned Single Judge held that the questions, whether the lands were
acquired by the Government and had then been transferred to the
University were not questions which could be properly decided under Article
Meherunnissa Begum vs A.P. Wakf Board . on 7 April, 2014
10. The bona fide dispute referred to above can be inferred in
many ways. For instance, the persons in actual possession of the land may
W.A.No.2227/19
& 1435/20 & :: 13 ::