Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Molugu Mahipal Reddy vs M Prdeep Kumar on 16 October, 2015 cites

M/S. Jethmull Bhojraj vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 January, 1972

10. It was also contended that the alleged vesting of land in the Government, based on earlier judgments of the High Court in Writ Petitions No.8316 of 2008, 602 of 2001 and Writ Appeal No.187 of 2007 arising out of Writ Petition No.8404 of 2005, was also totally inconsequential vis-a-vis the appellants who were not impleaded as parties to those proceedings. Any judgments delivered in those writ petitions, applications for direction or writ appeals, were therefore of little consequence. Inasmuch as the High Court had relied upon the earlier orders in the proceedings instituted by either party qua the survey numbers, aforementioned, without appreciating that the appellants were at no stage impleaded as parties to those proceedings nor given an opportunity to defend their title, it committed a mistake that is apparent on the face of the record. 10 It is also contended that the bona fides of the so called public activist were also doubtful in the light of certain information collected under the Right to Information Act that suggested that the Trust which the writ petitioner was claiming to be running had been shut down and the piece of land where the same was established transferred. It was urged that the High Court had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that land underlying Survey Nos.215 and 222 stood validly vested in the Government and free from all encumbrances. The appellants were, according to learned counsel for the appellants, entitled to question the validity of Notification under Section 17 of the Act, if only the State Government were to make any claim against them on the basis thereof. Since the Government had itself dropped the acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification and transferring possession, the appellants or their predecessors in-title do not have any reason to do so. It was urged that for a valid notification under Section 17 it was essential that a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued to the owners concerned which was not issued in the instant case according to the appellants. Reliance in support of that submission was placed upon the decision of this Court in M/s. 11 Jethumull Bhojraj v. State of Bihar and others (1972) 1 SCC 714.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 33 - K S Hegde - Full Document

M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 18 August, 2011

It was submitted by Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that in Delhi Airtech Services Private Ltd. and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 9 SCC 354, the question whether Section 11-A applies even to cases where the land stands vested under Section 17 of the Act is pending before a Three-judge Bench of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 731 - S Kumar - Full Document

V.Chandrasekaran & Anr vs Administrative Officer & Ors on 18 September, 2012

11. On behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner it was urged by Mr. Harin P. Raval that even when there was no award in regard to the lands situate in Survey Nos.215 and 222, the vesting was absolute in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act and once vested, the Government could not divest itself of land even if no award is made within the period stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act. Reliance in support of that submission was placed by him on the decision of this Court in V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and Ors. (2012) 12 S.C.C. 133. It is also contended that although there were no directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No.8316 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.602 of 2001 yet the findings recorded therein clearly established that the land in 12 question vested in the State Government for all intents and purposes which could not be allowed to be occupied unauthorisedly by the appellants or anyone else. The fact that the appellants herein were not impleaded as parties to the said earlier proceedings was, according to Mr. Raval, of no consequence. It was also urged that the possession of the land having been taken over, Section 48 of the Act was not available to the State Government to divest itself of the land and that the High Court was perfectly justified in holding so in the earlier rounds of litigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 259 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1