Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Nagin Chand Godha vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 April, 2003
In support of the aforesaid the learned
counsel for the respondent has relied on Tamil Nadu Housing
Board vs. A Viswam, (1996) 8 SCC 259 and Nagin Chand Godha
vs. UOI & Ors., 2003 (70) DRJ 721 (DB).
Gaon Sabha And Anr vs Nathi And Ors on 23 March, 2004
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is
settled law that a judgment/decree by a court lacking jurisdiction is
a nullity and bad in the eyes of law. Reliance has been placed on
the findings rendered by the apex court in Gaon Sabha vs, Nathi;
(2004) 12 SCC 555
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
In such circumstances the
principle laid down in Kiran Singh v. Chaman
Paswan [1955]1SCR117 would come into play
that a decree passed by a court without
jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity
could be set up whenever and wherever it is
sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at
the stage of execution and even in collateral
proceedings and further a defect of
jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or
territorial or whether it is in respect of the
subject matter of the action, strikes at the
very authority of the Court to pass any
decree, and such a defect cannot be cured
even by consent of parties. Therefore, the
finding that the order passed under
Section 7(2) of the Act vesting the property in
the Gaon Sabha is illegal recorded in the civil
suit (including that by the High Court in
second appeal) has to be completely ignored.
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
15. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgment
rendered in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.R's
& Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594 has contested that a suit for injunction
simplicitor was not maintainable as there was a cloud on
respondent/plaintiff's title. In view of the aforesaid it is stated that
the first appellate court and the trial court failed to consider the fact
that the plaintiff/respondent did not file any documents on record
which established their ownership to the suit land particularly when
DDA had challenged their title in respect thereof. Further it is
stated that the trial court erred in giving a finding with respect to
the ownership of the suit land in absence of any evidence in
relation thereto especially when no issues pertaining to the same
were framed.
Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs M. D. Bhagwat & Ors on 23 April, 1975
18.Relying on the judgment of the apex court in Balwant Narayan
Bhagde vs. MD Bhagwat AIR 1975 SC 1767 and Prahlad Singh vs.
Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 386, it is contested by the learned
counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that taking over of actual
possession of the land by the government is pre-requisite and mere
symbolic transfer would not vest the title with the government.
Pune Municipalc Corp.& Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors on 24 January, 2014
19. It has been further contested by the learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff that u/s 24(2) of The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are
deemed to have lapsed where award has been made prior to five
years or more of the commencement of the 2013 Act and
possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been
paid. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirmal Solanki & Anr.