Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Riazuddin vs Dda & Ors on 28 April, 2015 cites

Shri A.P.Jain And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 March, 2012

In A.P Jain's case (supra) the court has said that possession can be taken by due process of law. That does not necessarily mean that possession can be taken by filing suit for possession or through recourse to Public Premises Act when the Apex Court has held that possession can be taken by due process of law which means that right of hearing or representation given must be considered. In the instant case hearing has already been given right up to the Supreme Court to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. Since the interest has been acquired by appellant/Riazuddin after acquisition having attained finality it cannot be deemed to have created an interest in him.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 15 December, 2003

In Rame Gowda (supra), appellant/plaintiff was claiming title to the property whereas in the instant case no such title is being claimed by the appellant. He is basing his claim on possession which according to him has admittedly come into existence post-acquisition of which cognizance cannot be taken. Simultaneously, the other two cases are also R.S.A. No.226/2008 & 235/2008 Page 13 of 15 distinguishable and the judgments cannot be applied blindly without co- relation of facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1261 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke & Ors vs The Puna Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 23 January, 1995

16. The learned counsel for the respondent/DDA has contested this claim of the appellant. It has been contended by him that the apex court in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Ors v. Puna Municipal Corporation and Anr.; (1995) 3 SCC 33 has observed that it is not necessary to resort to R.S.A. No.226/2008 & 235/2008 Page 8 of 15 processes of law afresh for the purpose of retrieval of possession. It has been contended by him that since the appellant has already been given the right of hearing including the right of representation by filing the suit not only before the trial court, but also taken out an appeal before the first appellate court and the said matters having been decided against him, this tantamount to due compliance with the due process of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 144 - Full Document

Kusum Lata Khajanchi And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors. on 10 November, 1995

17. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and I have also gone through the record. There is no dispute about the fact that so far as the appellants in RSA No.235/2008 are concerned, these three ladies namely Smt.Kusum Lata, Smt.Shalini Goel and Smt. Alka Goel who are basing their claim on the power of attorney and agreement to sell purported to have been executed by one Sh.Tiger Singh who had GPA in his favour from Riazuddin. On the basis of these power of attorneys, the said appellants cannot be protected on the assumption of being in possession because admittedly the land in question stands acquired and that acquisition proceedings having been challenged in the competent court and the same having attained finality right up to the Supreme Court, it is not open for this court to injunct the lawful owner seeking retrieval of R.S.A. No.226/2008 & 235/2008 Page 9 of 15 possession of the premises against the respondent herein. Moreover, these three ladies i.e. Smt.Kusum Lata, Smt.Shalini Goel and Smt. Alka Goel were not parties in the court below and, therefore, cannot be permitted to become parties in the second appeal for the first time to get their rights adjudicated. For that to be done, they ought to have disclosed their interest either before the Supreme Court or ought to have been impleaded as parties in the trial court itself. Hence, on this short ground alone, their appeal bearing RSA No.235/2008 titled Kusum Lata & Others vs. DDA is dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012

20. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned that he is not opposing dispossession, but this dispossession must be in accordance with law, is absolutely correct. In accordance with law or due process of law, does not necessarily mean that the DDA ought to file a suit for recovery of possession. The very concept of due process of law is that the appellant must be given a right of hearing and a right of representation and if the same is done, it is a sufficient compliance with the due process of law. Reliance in this regard is placed on Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs. AIR 2012 SC 1727 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1056 - Full Document
1