Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)
Sri Narayanaswamy vs The District Commissioner on 14 August, 2019 cites

Chhedi Lal Yadav(D) Thr. Lr. And Ors. vs Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. And Ors. on 12 September, 2017

"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 269 - Full Document

R. Rudrappa vs Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga ... on 4 November, 1998

Commissioner & Ors. (C.A.No.3131/2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the 8 parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December,1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006(4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors., 2000 (2) Kr. L.J.Sh.N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 238 - M Anwar - Full Document
1