Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Section 6 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Meherunnissa Begum vs A.P. Wakf Board . on 7 April, 2014
9. The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by
Section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very
recent origin", cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by
the learned Single Judge himself in another case which is reported in
Meharunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. which was affirmed by a Division Bench.
It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the
question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into
operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that
question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is
alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of
the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title
between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the
ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions
unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of
such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a
person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of
time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property
requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of
law". Ss.2,6 & 7 of the A.P Encroachment Act are in pari materia with S.3, 11
& 12 of the KLC Act and what is declared in Thummala Krishna Rao, 1982
W.A.Nos.252, 684, 721,
825 & 1051/16 :: 20 ::
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Queen'S Educational Society vs Commr.Of Income Tax on 16 March, 2015
10. The SLP preferred by the State against the said judgment
was dismissed and hence, the said judgment has attained finality. To
us, the observations extracted above would squarely apply to the facts
of the instant cases to refrain the State from invoking the provisions of
Rule 8(3) of the Rules to cancel the Pattas covering the lands acquired
from the writ petitioners.