Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.32 seconds)Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010
Xxx vs In Re The State Of Assam And 102 Ors on 6 February, 2023
In view of the discussions above, when the Special Tribunal constituted
under the 2010 Act is required to first determine the civil liabilities and
thereafter the learned Tribunal is required to decide the civil liability about the
allegations of land grabbing, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of XXX
Vs. State of Assam (supra), no case is made out for quashing the proceedings
of Special land (L.G) Case No. 29/2017 and/or to hold it to be ultra vires the
provisions of Section 2 (d) and Section 2(e) of the Assam Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 2010.
Anarul Hoque Alias Anar Hussain vs Sadir Ali on 27 January, 2020
In view of the above findings, this court finds that there is error apparent
on the face of the record wherein this court in its Judgment & Order dated
26.10.2022 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 7/2022, had wrongly relied on
the decision and findings of a Coordinate bench of this court in Anarul Shaikh
alias Anar Hussain Vs. Sabir Ali (Supra) , which was not appropriately
applicable.
N. Venkateswara Rao vs Commissioner And Special Officer on 10 February, 1994
13. This court has also taken note of the fact that the judgment in the case of
Goundla Venkaiah & Anr. (Supra) was relied upon by the respondents at
the time of hearing of CRP No. 7/2022, but the same did not find mention in the
impugned Judgment & Order dated 26.10.2022, wherein the Apex Court had
noted that a larger bench in V. Laxminarasamma Vs. A. Yadaiah & Ors.
(Supra) had disapproved the subsequent judgment in N. Srinivasa
Rao v. Special Court, reported in [(2006) 4 SCC 214] which was quoted
and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners in CRP
No.7 of 2022).
Konda Lakshmana Bapuji vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 January, 2002
The Bench
referred to judgments in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. [(2002) 3 SCC
258] , Gouni Satya Reddi v. Govt. of A.P. [(2004) 7 SCC 398] and observed :
Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
V. Laxminarasamma vs A. Yadaiah (Dead) And Ors on 3 March, 2009
13. This court has also taken note of the fact that the judgment in the case of
Goundla Venkaiah & Anr. (Supra) was relied upon by the respondents at
the time of hearing of CRP No. 7/2022, but the same did not find mention in the
impugned Judgment & Order dated 26.10.2022, wherein the Apex Court had
noted that a larger bench in V. Laxminarasamma Vs. A. Yadaiah & Ors.
(Supra) had disapproved the subsequent judgment in N. Srinivasa
Rao v. Special Court, reported in [(2006) 4 SCC 214] which was quoted
and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners in CRP
No.7 of 2022).
M/S Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd vs Mandal Revenue Officer & Ors on 10 October, 2007
(Mahalaxmi Motors case [(2007) 11 SCC 714] , SCC pp. 732-33, paras 38 & 42-44)
"38. Lawful entitlement on the part of a party to possess the land being the
determinative factor, it is axiomatic that so long as the land grabber would not be
able to show his legal entitlement to hold the land, the jurisdiction of the Special
Court cannot be held to be ousted.
Mandal Revenue Officer vs Goundla Venkaiah & Anr on 6 January, 2010
This court had also mistakenly failed to mention the authority,
Goundla Venkaiah & Anr. (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for
the present review petitioner in view of the findings and reasons discussed
hereinabove, this Court finds that the rule of per incuriam is applicable in the
Order dated 26.10.2022 in CRP No. 7/2022 and accordingly needs to be
interfered with.