Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Huchaveeraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2021 cites

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

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grant was made in favor of father of respondent No.4 on 24.01.1948. The petitioners' father had purchased the land in question from the father of respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1956 and further submits that the father of the petitioners had sold the land in Sy.No.36/3 under a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1956. He further submits that virtually it is an exchange. He further submits that the grantee had filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before -6- respondent No.3, after lapse of 35 years from the date of the sale transaction. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. He further places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka and another reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC) and in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and others vs M. Ashwatha and others reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC). Hence, he submits that respondent No.2 ought to have dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay and laches in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. He further submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

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 -9- Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 269 - Full Document

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

& Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 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 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.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 81 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

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

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