Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)
Dr. Rajbir Solanki And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 February, 2008 cites

Nagin Chand Godha vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 April, 2003

The argument of Mr. Sethi that the actual physical possession of the land was never taken over from the petitioners has not impressed us. Messrs Poddar and Salwan have produced the relevant official record before us to demonstrate that the possession of the land in question stood taken over on 1st November, 1999. The fact that the petitioners continued to sow crops on the land even after the land had vested in the State was in that view of the matter wholly inconsequential. As a matter of fact, any such cultivation could at best be deemed to be permissive and the land for that purpose deemed to be in trust with those cultivating the same. We are supported in that view by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nagin Chand Godha v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (70) DRJ 721 where the Court has while dealing with a similar contention observed:
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 32 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central ... vs Suresha Nand Juyal @ Musa Ram (Deceased) ... on 14 March, 1997

The Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Jal Nigam Central Stores Division U.P. v. Suresha Nand Juyal , also considered the question of symbolic possession taken by the Officers. Therefore, in view of what is stated hereinabove, it is not possible for this Court to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel that possession is not taken. Suffice it to say that after symbolic possession is taken, if the petitioner is enjoying the possession, he is enjoying the possession as a trustee on behalf of the public at large and that by itself cannot be considered to be a ground to contend that possession is not taken. It is the duty of the person who is occupying the property to look after the property and to see that the property is not defaced or devalued by himself or by others. He cannot subsequently come to the Court to say that actual possession is not taken and therefore he should be protected and land be denotified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Aflatoon And Others vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Others on 23 August, 1974

In Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. , the declaration under Section 6 was issued in the year 1966 whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 1972. The Supreme Court considered this delay to be sufficient to warrant dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches. The Court held that if there was any defect in the notification under Section 4 issued as early as in the year 1959 and the declaration under Section 6 issued in the year 1966, there was no reason why the petitioners should have waited till the year 1972 to come to the Court. It was not, observed the Court, permissible for the petitioners to sit on the fence, allow the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and then attack the same on grounds which were available to them when the notification was published. The following passage is in this regard instructive:
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 373 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1   2 Next