Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Smt Muddanna Srilatha vs State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2022 cites

Satyan vs Deputy Commissioner . on 30 April, 2019

10. Sri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 07.01.2005 at the first instance directing resumption and restoration of the subject property without notice to the petitioners would be non-est in law and if such order is non-est, the subsequent permission under Section 4 of the PTCL Act and the later transfer in favour of the ninth respondent would also be inconsequential in law. The Assistant Commissioner could not have directed resumption and restoration of the subject property without examining 14 the question of inordinate delay in the initiation of proceedings. The subject property is granted to the original Grantee in the year 1975 and the first sale is in the year 1992 but the proceedings for resumption and restoration are commenced only in the year 2004-05. There is undeniable inordinate delay in initiation of the proceedings, and with the recent enunciation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the decision in 'SATYAN v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS'3 and 'VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. M. ASHWATHA AND OTHERS'4, it would be beyond contest that the initiation of the proceedings in the year 2004-05 must fail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 32 - S K Kaul - Full Document

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

10. Sri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 07.01.2005 at the first instance directing resumption and restoration of the subject property without notice to the petitioners would be non-est in law and if such order is non-est, the subsequent permission under Section 4 of the PTCL Act and the later transfer in favour of the ninth respondent would also be inconsequential in law. The Assistant Commissioner could not have directed resumption and restoration of the subject property without examining 14 the question of inordinate delay in the initiation of proceedings. The subject property is granted to the original Grantee in the year 1975 and the first sale is in the year 1992 but the proceedings for resumption and restoration are commenced only in the year 2004-05. There is undeniable inordinate delay in initiation of the proceedings, and with the recent enunciation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the decision in 'SATYAN v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS'3 and 'VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. M. ASHWATHA AND OTHERS'4, it would be beyond contest that the initiation of the proceedings in the year 2004-05 must fail.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 146 - Full Document
1   2 Next