Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... vs P. Peda Chinnayya And Ors. on 7 February, 1996
11. I am not convinced with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of CMP No. 19044 of 2001 which is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 2030 days in filing Rev. CMP (SR) No. 70327 of 2001 to review the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court in AS No. 2541 of 1986 on 17-7-1996. It is not the case of the State that the plaintiffs in OS No. 90 of 1981 have obtained the decree by playing fraud on the Court. Having obtained some relief, the plaintiffs filed appeal in AS No. 2541 of 1986 against the judgment and decree in OS No. 90 of 1981. The Division Bench decided the said appeal by granting certain relief by judgment dated 17-7-1996. It is no doubt true the appeal filed by the Government in AS No. 697 of 1985 could not be decided along with the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. For that, the plaintiffs cannot be blamed. Equally so, the Full Bench decision (supra) was though available, but that was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench at the time of deciding AS No. 2541 of 1986 and as such the Division Bench could not examine the ratio laid down in the said Full Bench decision. Even otherwise, the Full Bench has also recognised the rights of the assignees who were granted pattas, for entitlement of compensation in different forms depending upon few factoRs.
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors on 29 November, 1967
In Anamallai Club v. Government of Tamilnadu, , whereupon Mr. V.LN.G.K. Murthy has placed strong reliance, the Supreme Court referring to its earlier decisions in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Sing (supra), East India Hotels Limited v. Syndicate Bank, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 29, while disapproving the manner in which possession had been taken forcibly in that case after determination of the licence, however, held that possession cannot be restored back. In equity, it was held:
U.O.I. Thru Secry. Ministry Of Home ... vs A. Ajit Singh S/0. S.Chet Singh R/O. No. ... on 29 April, 1997
(C) As the appellants in AS No. 1266 of 1987 (plaintiffs in OS No. 49 of 1984)
have not pleaded or sought any relief as to the invalidity of any of the restrictive covenants contained in the orders of assignment made to them, this appeal is to be considered in accordance with the principles and ratio in the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.S. Seshagiri Rao (supra), K.S.R. Rao (supra) and Ajit Singh (supra), the core principles of which have been summarised in the judgment of Brother Justice Bilal Nazki (extracted at Para 13 supra).
Special Land Acquisition & ... vs M. S. Seshagiri Rao & Anr on 31 January, 1968
(C) As the appellants in AS No. 1266 of 1987 (plaintiffs in OS No. 49 of 1984)
have not pleaded or sought any relief as to the invalidity of any of the restrictive covenants contained in the orders of assignment made to them, this appeal is to be considered in accordance with the principles and ratio in the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.S. Seshagiri Rao (supra), K.S.R. Rao (supra) and Ajit Singh (supra), the core principles of which have been summarised in the judgment of Brother Justice Bilal Nazki (extracted at Para 13 supra).