Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 4 in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Vivek M.Hinduja &Amp Ors. vs M.Ashwatha . on 6 December, 2017
3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Shashidhara, reiterating
the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and
contend that the grantee's husband was employed as Gram
Sevak and grantee owned 35 guntas of land and therefore,
respondent No.4 has secured the land by playing fraud on the
authorities. While highlighting the laxness on the part of
respondent No.4 in not seeking resumption within reasonable
period, he has placed reliance on decree passed in a suit for
bare injunction bearing O.S.No.388/1986. He would submit
that the said suit was decreed on 24.07.1986, while
application seeking resumption is filed in 2008. Therefore, he
would contend that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs.
State of Karnataka and another1 and Vivek M. Hinduja
.vs. M. Aswatha2 are squarely applicable to the present case
on hand. Placing reliance on these judgment, he would
vehemently argue and contend that that respondent No.2-
1
(2020) 14 SCC 232
2
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
5
Assistant Commissioner without taking cognizance of
inordinate delay erred in entertaining a resumption
application.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2017
Whether the order of restoration passed
by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner
and confirmed by respondent N.1-Deputy
Commissioner runs contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the cases
8
of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek
M.Hinduja (supra)?
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sri K.C. Ganga Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2013
4. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ganga
Reddy vs. State of Karnataka3 and the judgment rendered
in the case of A.Ramakrishna vs. Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore District and Others4. Referring
to these two judgments, he would vehemently argue and
contend that petitioner is asserting possessory rights over the
land in question dehors the alleged grant in favour of
respondent No.4 and therefore, he would contend that the
impugned orders passed by the authorities below are liable to
be set aside by this Court.
S.V. Madhavan, A. Ramakrishnan, K. ... vs The Special Commissioner For Milk ... on 13 November, 2002
4. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ganga
Reddy vs. State of Karnataka3 and the judgment rendered
in the case of A.Ramakrishna vs. Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore District and Others4. Referring
to these two judgments, he would vehemently argue and
contend that petitioner is asserting possessory rights over the
land in question dehors the alleged grant in favour of
respondent No.4 and therefore, he would contend that the
impugned orders passed by the authorities below are liable to
be set aside by this Court.
1