Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Ram Kishore & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors.-Respondents on 17 November, 2015 cites

Jhutharam & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 15 October, 2015

2. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. D.K. Dixit for the petitioners that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question, which was sought to be acquired by the respondent State for the development of Prithviraj Nagar Scheme, and an award was also made on 13/6/1991 in respect of the said acquisition, however the possession thereof was not taken by the respondents, but on the basis of forged documents some wrongdoers had encroached upon the said land on the ground that the said land was allotted to them by the Shankar Bhawan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. He further submitted that the petitioners therefore had filed the criminal and civil cases against the said encroachers, and the concerned Court had directed the parties to maintain the status quo, however the JDA was bent upon regularizing the said plots craved out on the land in question in favour of the encroachers. Relying upon the provisions contained in Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, and the decision of this Court in case of Jhutharam & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2442/2015, he submitted that the petitioners having not been paid compensation nor the possession of the said land having been taken from the petitioner by the respondents for a period of five years after the award was made, the land acquisition proceedings had stood lapsed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 December, 1950

3. At the outselt, it is required to be mentioned that the petition has been filed by the petitioners through power of attorney holder Shri Shankar Lal Sharma. The issue of filing of writ petition through power of attorney holder or through somebody else is no more res-integra. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that the legal rights that can be enforced in writ jurisdiction must be the rights of the petitioner himself /herself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. The existence of a right and infringement thereof are the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and such right has to be the personal or individual right of the petitioner. Beneficial reference of decision of Supreme Court in case of Charanjit Lal Chaudhary vs. U.O.I., AIR 1951 SC 41, in case of State of Punjab vs. Suraj Prakash Kapur, AIR 1963 SC 507 in case of State of Orissa vs. Ramchandra Dev AIR 1952 SC 12, in case of Cyril E. Fernandex vs. Sr. Myria Lydia & Ors,AIR 1977 SC 2145 be made in this regard. The petition therefore having been filed by the so called power of attorney on behalf of the petitionersdeserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is also required to be noted that apart from the fact that the original power of attorney has not been produced on record, from the copy it appears that no such power to file the present petition was given by the petitioners to the alleged power of attorney holder Shankar Lal Sharma and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 657 - H J Kania - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Suraj Parkash Kapur, Etc on 4 May, 1961

3. At the outselt, it is required to be mentioned that the petition has been filed by the petitioners through power of attorney holder Shri Shankar Lal Sharma. The issue of filing of writ petition through power of attorney holder or through somebody else is no more res-integra. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that the legal rights that can be enforced in writ jurisdiction must be the rights of the petitioner himself /herself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. The existence of a right and infringement thereof are the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and such right has to be the personal or individual right of the petitioner. Beneficial reference of decision of Supreme Court in case of Charanjit Lal Chaudhary vs. U.O.I., AIR 1951 SC 41, in case of State of Punjab vs. Suraj Prakash Kapur, AIR 1963 SC 507 in case of State of Orissa vs. Ramchandra Dev AIR 1952 SC 12, in case of Cyril E. Fernandex vs. Sr. Myria Lydia & Ors,AIR 1977 SC 2145 be made in this regard. The petition therefore having been filed by the so called power of attorney on behalf of the petitionersdeserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is also required to be noted that apart from the fact that the original power of attorney has not been produced on record, from the copy it appears that no such power to file the present petition was given by the petitioners to the alleged power of attorney holder Shankar Lal Sharma and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

Cyril E. Fernandes vs Sr. Maria Lydia & Ors on 8 September, 1977

3. At the outselt, it is required to be mentioned that the petition has been filed by the petitioners through power of attorney holder Shri Shankar Lal Sharma. The issue of filing of writ petition through power of attorney holder or through somebody else is no more res-integra. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that the legal rights that can be enforced in writ jurisdiction must be the rights of the petitioner himself /herself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. The existence of a right and infringement thereof are the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and such right has to be the personal or individual right of the petitioner. Beneficial reference of decision of Supreme Court in case of Charanjit Lal Chaudhary vs. U.O.I., AIR 1951 SC 41, in case of State of Punjab vs. Suraj Prakash Kapur, AIR 1963 SC 507 in case of State of Orissa vs. Ramchandra Dev AIR 1952 SC 12, in case of Cyril E. Fernandex vs. Sr. Myria Lydia & Ors,AIR 1977 SC 2145 be made in this regard. The petition therefore having been filed by the so called power of attorney on behalf of the petitionersdeserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is also required to be noted that apart from the fact that the original power of attorney has not been produced on record, from the copy it appears that no such power to file the present petition was given by the petitioners to the alleged power of attorney holder Shankar Lal Sharma and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 24 - A C Gupta - Full Document
1