Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Article 49 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 7 in Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act 1961
Bishan Das And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 19 April, 1961
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on
various judgments in support of their contention. He relied on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Bishan Das and Ors. v. The
State of Punjab and Ors. [AIR 1961 SC 1570]. The Apex
Court, in the afore judgment, found that the State, by executive
orders, deprived possession of the property vested, which was
incorrect and arbitrary. Here, the position is quite the opposite.
The District Collector was only exercising his power to set right
a mistake committed by the authority while issuing Ext.P9.
Therefore, the principles laid down in the afore judgment may
not apply to the case at hand.
Shri Bhimsehwara Swami Varu Temple vs Pedapudi Krishna Murthi And Ors. on 27 March, 1973
The learned counsel further relied
on Shri.Bhimsehwara Swami Varu Temple v. Pedapudi
Krishna Murthi and Others [AIR 1973 SC 1299] to contend
that on account of the entries in revenue records as pointed out
by them they were entitled to succeed. However, I notice that
21
W.P(C) No.25830 of 2010 2025:KER:5422
the entry with respect to the Settlement Register is to be
considered at first, which admittedly is against the petitioner.
The case of the State is that some foul play is carried out
subsequently at the instance of those interested and therefore,
the subsequent entries cannot be acted upon.
Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr on 16 March, 1982
He further relied
on the Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala
Krishna Rao and Anr. [(1982) 2 SCC 134] and State of
Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi (Smt)(Dead) by LRs. and
Ors. [1995 Supp (2) SCC 290], in support of the contention
that in cases of the present nature, the remedy of the State lies
elsewhere. However, as already noticed, the District Collector
issued the impugned order to set right an illegality in Ext.P9 and
that cannot be said to be incorrect. Therefore, the afore
decisions would not apply to the facts of the present case.
State Of Rajasthan vs Padmavati Devi (Smt) (Dead) By Lrs. And ... on 6 April, 1995
He further relied
on the Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala
Krishna Rao and Anr. [(1982) 2 SCC 134] and State of
Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi (Smt)(Dead) by LRs. and
Ors. [1995 Supp (2) SCC 290], in support of the contention
that in cases of the present nature, the remedy of the State lies
elsewhere. However, as already noticed, the District Collector
issued the impugned order to set right an illegality in Ext.P9 and
that cannot be said to be incorrect. Therefore, the afore
decisions would not apply to the facts of the present case.
Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006
The
petitioners relied on Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors.
[(2006) 5 SCC 353] to support the contention regarding the
presumption in favour of the title deeds. However, as already
noticed, the prior documents were not produced and hence, the
22
W.P(C) No.25830 of 2010 2025:KER:5422
findings in Ext.P12 cannot be said to be incorrect.
M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 18 May, 2010
The learned
counsel would rely on Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State
of Kerala [2018 (2) KLT 369] to contend that the State has
to establish its title through the civil court. In my opinion, the
said issue does not arise for consideration in this case since the
orders issued by the District Collector canceling earlier
proceedings of the Assistant Director, Re-survey are being
challenged in these cases. Therefore, the sustainability or
otherwise of those proceedings alone arises for consideration in
these cases.