Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.55 seconds)
Vale Amruthamma And Another vs Joint Collector And Additional ... on 10 February, 2025 cites

Jupudi Bhushanam vs Joint Collector And Ors. on 11 December, 1996

From the above-mentioned averments, it is clear that after the grant of Section 38E certificate, the petitioners' possession was restored by the Revenue Inspector under panchanama on 6.6.1978. In my opinion, once the tenants, in whose favour ownership 34 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 certificate has been issued under Section 38E of the Act, have been put in possession of the property, they cannot approach the Tahsildar again and again for restoration of possession whenever they are dispossessed for, they no longer continue to be under protection of the provisions of theAct as they have evolved into full-fledged pe owners with the issuance of the ownership certificate under Section 38E of the Act. If they are subsequently dispossessed, they can only approach the competent civil Court by way of a suit. This view of mine is fortified by the judgment of this Court in Jupudi Bhushanam v. Joint Collector, Khammam and others, 1997 (1) ALD 440 1997 (1) ALT 627.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - K B Siddappa - Full Document

Thota Sridhar Reddy vs Mandala Ramulamma on 1 October, 2021

19. On going through the judgment rendered in Thota Sridhar (supra) it can be said that it is a well-established principle of law that a protected tenant's rights of ownership under Section 38-E of the Act are not automatic, but rather are contingent upon fulfilling specific requirements. Firstly, a certificate of ownership must be issued to the protected tenant, which serves as proof of their ownership rights. Secondly, the protected tenant must pay the determined amount to the landowner, which represents the consideration for the transfer of ownership. Failure to obtain a certificate of ownership, produce a deed of lease, or pay the determined price can result in the annulment of ownership. This is because the protected tenant has not fulfilled the necessary conditions for acquiring ownership rights. In cases where a protected tenant or their successors are dispossessed from the land, they can seek relief under Section 32 of the Act. This provision allows them to file an application before the Tahsildar for recovery of possession. However, it is 38 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 essential that they pursue this remedy in a timely manner, as delay or failure to do so can result in the loss of their rights. Moreover, if the land is subsequently acquired or third-party rights are created, the protected tenant's rights may be extinguished. Therefore, it is crucial for protected tenants to be diligent in pursuing their rights and remedies under the Tenancy Act to avoid losing their ownership rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - H Gupta - Full Document

Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) Thr.Lrs.& Ors vs S. Venkatareddy (Dead) Thr.Lrs.& Ors on 3 December, 2009

• Edukanti Kistamma Vs. S.Venkatreddy 3 "The certificate issued under Section 38- E(2) shall be conclusive evidence of the protected tenant having become the owner of the land with effect from the date of the certificate, as against the landholder and all other persons having any interest therein. In case the protected tenant is not in possession of the land, he has a right to restoration of the possession of the said land through the Tahsildar. The protected tenant cannot be dispossessed illegally by the landlord or anybody else. If so dispossessed, he has a right to restoration of the possession. He can be dispossessed only by taking recourse to the procedure 3 2010 1 SCC 756 12 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 prescribed under Section 32 of the 1950 Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

S.P. Jain vs Krishna Mohan Gupta & Ors on 4 December, 1986

The court must be strong against any construction which tends to reduce a statute's utility. The provisions of the statute must be construed so as to make it 13 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 effective and operative and to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. The court has the duty to construe the statute to promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and should not efface its very purpose. (Vide S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta [(1987) 1 SCC 191 : AIR 1987 SC 222] , RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424 : AIR 1987 SC 1023] , Haryana SEB v. Suresh [(1999) 3 SCC 601 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 765 : AIR 1999 SC 1160] , Gayatri Devi Pansari v. State of Orissa [(2000) 4 SCC 221 : AIR 2000 SC 1531] , High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat [(2003) 4 SCC 712 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 565 : AIR 2003 SC 1201] , Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India [(2003) 7 SCC 589 : AIR 2003 SC 3240] , Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(2004) 3 SCC 1] , Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. [(2004) 1 SCC 702 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 49 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Gayatri Devi Pansari vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 April, 2000

The court must be strong against any construction which tends to reduce a statute's utility. The provisions of the statute must be construed so as to make it 13 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 effective and operative and to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. The court has the duty to construe the statute to promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and should not efface its very purpose. (Vide S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta [(1987) 1 SCC 191 : AIR 1987 SC 222] , RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424 : AIR 1987 SC 1023] , Haryana SEB v. Suresh [(1999) 3 SCC 601 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 765 : AIR 1999 SC 1160] , Gayatri Devi Pansari v. State of Orissa [(2000) 4 SCC 221 : AIR 2000 SC 1531] , High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat [(2003) 4 SCC 712 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 565 : AIR 2003 SC 1201] , Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India [(2003) 7 SCC 589 : AIR 2003 SC 3240] , Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(2004) 3 SCC 1] , Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. [(2004) 1 SCC 702 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

High Court Of Gujarat & Anr vs Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors on 10 March, 2003

The court must be strong against any construction which tends to reduce a statute's utility. The provisions of the statute must be construed so as to make it 13 SKS,J CRP.Nos.887 & 836 OF 2020 effective and operative and to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. The court has the duty to construe the statute to promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and should not efface its very purpose. (Vide S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta [(1987) 1 SCC 191 : AIR 1987 SC 222] , RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424 : AIR 1987 SC 1023] , Haryana SEB v. Suresh [(1999) 3 SCC 601 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 765 : AIR 1999 SC 1160] , Gayatri Devi Pansari v. State of Orissa [(2000) 4 SCC 221 : AIR 2000 SC 1531] , High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat [(2003) 4 SCC 712 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 565 : AIR 2003 SC 1201] , Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India [(2003) 7 SCC 589 : AIR 2003 SC 3240] , Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(2004) 3 SCC 1] , Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. [(2004) 1 SCC 702 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 204 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next