Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.36 seconds)
Gudepu Sailoo And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 1 September, 1997 cites

State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969

4. With reference to the order of the Government dated 24-1-1996, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the District Revenue Officer having already gone into the merits and found that all the seven irregularities alleged were of no consequence, there was no purpose in the Government reopening the same issue. He also submitted that the entire exercise was only with the mala fide intention of defeating the right of the petitioners for compensation. He argued that the provisions of Section 166-B and C do not lay down any period of limitation and as held by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. P.Raghav, and in Mansaram v, S.P. Pathak, and in such circumstances reasonable period of limitation which can be on par with the appellate jurisdiction could be taken as only 90 days and the proposed action of the Government after a period of 30 years was without jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 726 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Mansaram vs S. P. Pathak And Others on 29 September, 1983

4. With reference to the order of the Government dated 24-1-1996, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the District Revenue Officer having already gone into the merits and found that all the seven irregularities alleged were of no consequence, there was no purpose in the Government reopening the same issue. He also submitted that the entire exercise was only with the mala fide intention of defeating the right of the petitioners for compensation. He argued that the provisions of Section 166-B and C do not lay down any period of limitation and as held by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. P.Raghav, and in Mansaram v, S.P. Pathak, and in such circumstances reasonable period of limitation which can be on par with the appellate jurisdiction could be taken as only 90 days and the proposed action of the Government after a period of 30 years was without jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 109 - D A Desai - Full Document

The Chittoor District Co-Op. Milk ... vs C. Rajamma And Ors. on 20 February, 1996

He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chittoor District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd v. C. Rajamma, 1996 (2) ALD 239 to submit that public purpose overrides any private interest and in N. Ramachandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, 1990 (2) AWR 534 to contend that where no limitation is prescribed, a revision petition cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - M H Ansari - Full Document
1