Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.30 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Section 16 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
State Of Maharashtra vs Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (Dead) By Lrs on 7 March, 2000
In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Pravin Jethalal Kamdar AIR 2000 SC 1099 an issue of limitation after possession was under consideration and it was held 'when possession has been taken by the appellants pursuant to void documents, Article 65 of the Limitation Act will apply and the limitation to file the suit would be 12 years'. This was a case under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The law laid down as above has no relevance to the controversy in the present case nor such an issue regarding limitation arises in these proceedings.
State Of Orissa vs Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa And Ors. on 29 March, 1996
The case of State of Orissa Vs. Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others reported in AIR 1996 Orissa 199 related to the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (Act no. 6 of 1972). The land owner was found to be in possession of the land for more than thirty years prior to the initiation of the encroachment proceedings. It was held that a suit for declaration of title by the land owner was maintainable before the Civil Court particularly when under the Act no. 6 of 1972 the court was of limited jurisdiction and the remedy under Section 6 of Act no. 6 of 1972 was a summary remedy and not the kind of legal process which was suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. In the present case the plaintiff-appellant being a transferee after notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has brought the suit before the Civil Court whereas the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code for resolution of all disputes arising there under. This decision in the case of Bhanu Mali can be of no benefit to the appellants.