Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)

K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2011

(h) Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, it is an obligation of the appellant-State Government to pay compensation for the property compulsorily acquired by them. The obligation to pay compensation arise from the natural right of the individual who has been deprived of by such acquisition of his immovable property by the state authorities while exercising their power of eminent domain. The appellant-
Supreme Court of India Cites 156 - Cited by 232 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Hanumantha Rama Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2018

4. The allottee had filed an application in Form No.7 under Section 48A(i) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy right as a tenant. The Land Tribunal allowed the application on 05.04.1978. The respondent No.1 challenged the order of the Land Tribunal in Writ Petition No.5266/1978. This Court allowed the writ petition and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Land Tribunal once again passed an order dated 28.11.1988 without notice to the respondent No.1 granted occupancy right in favour of Sri. A.A.Morab. The order of the Land Tribunal was again assailed by the respondent No.1 in W.P.No.40120/1993. This Court vide order dated 01.07.2006 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and directed the Land Tribunal to settle the dispute, keeping in mind the ratio laid down in 6 Hanumantha Durga Naik Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1988 (3) KLJ 294.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - R Malimath - Full Document
1