Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors vs Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli & Anr on 7 March, 2002
In that view of the matter, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgement of this Court in Church Missionary Society, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada v. Govt. of A.P., in support of his contention that enquiry under Section 5-A cannot be resorted to as a matter of course, is of no avail to him, and more so when the said judgement did not take into consideration the effect of the judgement of the apex Court First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli , 2002 (2) Supreme 320 on that aspect.
Appropriation of Endowments Rules
Church Missionary Society vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 2 December, 2003
In that view of the matter, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgement of this Court in Church Missionary Society, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada v. Govt. of A.P., in support of his contention that enquiry under Section 5-A cannot be resorted to as a matter of course, is of no avail to him, and more so when the said judgement did not take into consideration the effect of the judgement of the apex Court First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli , 2002 (2) Supreme 320 on that aspect.
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
S. Yadaiah And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Endowments, ... on 19 December, 2001
In the above view of the matter, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in Yadaiah v. Govt. of A.P., 1983 (1) ALT 233 in support of his contention that executive instructions issued by the Government being binding, the authorities are bound to follow them in letter and spirit, is of no avail to him.
Bammidi Jagannayakulu And Others vs District Collector, Srikakulam And ... on 23 June, 1999
16. The petitioner, admittedly is a tenant of respondent No. 3, and he cannot claim to have better rights than what respondent No. 3 has, and at best, he being in possession of the land belonging to respondent No. 3 as a tenant, and person interested in the land, can claim his share of compensation, which may be awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition thereof. This aspect of the matter was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in B. Jagannayakulu v. District Collector, , wherein he held thus: