Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Sri H Mahanthesh vs The Deputy Commissioner on 21 June, 2023 cites

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2017

NC: 2023:KHC:21501 WP No. 42648 of 2018 Commissioner is patently erroneous and suffers from serious perversity. The respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner has very casually and mechanically exercised jurisdiction and has entertained petition, which is filed after gross delay of 48 years. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has rightly reversed the order. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has followed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another (cited supra). The order of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is strictly in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 373 - Full Document

Sri.Ningappa Hanamappa Hebsur vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 July, 2020

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and others4 has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations where there is 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:21501 WP No. 42648 of 2018 inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 81 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

B.K. Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 15 February, 2008

11. The controversy as to whether the document styled as Certificate of grant would automatically fall under the category of granted land for depressed classes is dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the said controversy and upholding the judgment of the High Court, held that, mainly because a document is styled as a certificate of grant, that in itself will not lead to an inference that the grant was intended for a depressed class. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 74 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Vivek M.Hinduja &Amp Ors. vs M.Ashwatha . on 6 December, 2017

2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another1 and Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha2. It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

Chhedi Lal Yadav vs Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. on 19 April, 2017

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and others4 has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations where there is 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:21501 WP No. 42648 of 2018 inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 7 - Cited by 77 - Full Document
1