Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
4. Since then, pleadings in the suit have been completed. The suit came
up before this Court on 14th January, 2019 for framing of issues when on
going through the plaint and having found the title claimed by the plaintiffs
to be incongruous, it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs as to
how the plaintiff no.1 Society incorporated on 16th February, 2005 could
claim title since 1947. Though the counsel for the plaintiffs on that date
stated that the plaintiff no.1 Society was a successor of Kalkaji Welfare
Association in existence since 1965 and before that it was a property of
"few people" but it was observed that neither any sale deed from the "few
people" in favour of Kalkaji Welfare Association nor any sale deed from
Kalkaji Welfare Association in favour of the plaintiff no.1 Society had
been pleaded. The counsel for the plaintiffs then argued that the plaintiffs
claim title by adverse possession. However attention of the counsel for the
plaintiffs was invited to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Vs.
Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs.
Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779, Mandal Revenue Officer Vs.
Goundla Venkaiah (2010) 2 SCC 461 and Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash
(1995) 4 SCC 496 holding that the pleas of lawful title and title by adverse
possession are mutually inconsistent, antithetical and cannot be taken
together or even alternatively. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiffs
was also invited to Sections 389 to 391 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
CS(OS) 469/2016 Page 5 of 12
Act, 1957 relating to burial grounds. On request of the counsel for the
plaintiffs, the hearing was adjourned.
Mandal Revenue Officer vs Goundla Venkaiah & Anr on 6 January, 2010
4. Since then, pleadings in the suit have been completed. The suit came
up before this Court on 14th January, 2019 for framing of issues when on
going through the plaint and having found the title claimed by the plaintiffs
to be incongruous, it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs as to
how the plaintiff no.1 Society incorporated on 16th February, 2005 could
claim title since 1947. Though the counsel for the plaintiffs on that date
stated that the plaintiff no.1 Society was a successor of Kalkaji Welfare
Association in existence since 1965 and before that it was a property of
"few people" but it was observed that neither any sale deed from the "few
people" in favour of Kalkaji Welfare Association nor any sale deed from
Kalkaji Welfare Association in favour of the plaintiff no.1 Society had
been pleaded. The counsel for the plaintiffs then argued that the plaintiffs
claim title by adverse possession. However attention of the counsel for the
plaintiffs was invited to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Vs.
Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs.
Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779, Mandal Revenue Officer Vs.
Goundla Venkaiah (2010) 2 SCC 461 and Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash
(1995) 4 SCC 496 holding that the pleas of lawful title and title by adverse
possession are mutually inconsistent, antithetical and cannot be taken
together or even alternatively. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiffs
was also invited to Sections 389 to 391 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
CS(OS) 469/2016 Page 5 of 12
Act, 1957 relating to burial grounds. On request of the counsel for the
plaintiffs, the hearing was adjourned.
Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati (Dead)By L.Rs vs Prem Prakash & Ors on 10 May, 1995
4. Since then, pleadings in the suit have been completed. The suit came
up before this Court on 14th January, 2019 for framing of issues when on
going through the plaint and having found the title claimed by the plaintiffs
to be incongruous, it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs as to
how the plaintiff no.1 Society incorporated on 16th February, 2005 could
claim title since 1947. Though the counsel for the plaintiffs on that date
stated that the plaintiff no.1 Society was a successor of Kalkaji Welfare
Association in existence since 1965 and before that it was a property of
"few people" but it was observed that neither any sale deed from the "few
people" in favour of Kalkaji Welfare Association nor any sale deed from
Kalkaji Welfare Association in favour of the plaintiff no.1 Society had
been pleaded. The counsel for the plaintiffs then argued that the plaintiffs
claim title by adverse possession. However attention of the counsel for the
plaintiffs was invited to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Vs.
Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs.
Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779, Mandal Revenue Officer Vs.
Goundla Venkaiah (2010) 2 SCC 461 and Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash
(1995) 4 SCC 496 holding that the pleas of lawful title and title by adverse
possession are mutually inconsistent, antithetical and cannot be taken
together or even alternatively. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiffs
was also invited to Sections 389 to 391 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
CS(OS) 469/2016 Page 5 of 12
Act, 1957 relating to burial grounds. On request of the counsel for the
plaintiffs, the hearing was adjourned.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
9. Supreme Court, in relation to water bodies and encroachment of land
of water bodies, has vide orders dated 7th September, 2018, 27th November,
2018 and 28th January, 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.4677/1985 titled M.C.
Mehta Vs. Union Of India issued directions for removal of encroachments
therefrom and revival thereof.
Jagpal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 28 January, 2011
11. Even if the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the plaintiffs is to
be accepted, as per the direction issued in Jagpal Singh supra, each State
Government has to make a Committee to takeover such shamlat-deh land
and to remove encroachments therefrom. Thus the said line of reasoning
also does not advance the case of the plaintiffs and rather not only shows
the plaintiffs to be not entitled to the declaration sought but also shows the
plaintiffs being not entitled to injunction inasmuch as no injunction
contrary to the direction of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh can be
issued and committees constituted in pursuance whereto are seized of the matter.
Zulfiquar Ali Khan (Dead) Through Lrs & ... vs Straw Products Limited & Ors. on 4 August, 2000
16. The title if any of the defendant no.4 DDA to the land is not to be
adjudicated in the present suit and it is the right and title of the plaintiffs
qua which declaration is claimed which is for adjudication. Once the
averments in the plaint do not show any semblance of right of which
declaration is sought, issues are not to be mechanically framed in the suits
and the suits not to be mechanically posted for recording evidence when
the same outcome which is to follow after trial is writ large today itself.
Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) prescribes
the pleas on which issues are to be framed and the pleas in the plaint do not
constitute a material plea on which an issue qua the relief of declaration can
be sought or framed by the Court. Reference in this regard may be made to
Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw Products Limited 2000 SCC OnLine Del
577, Bhupinder Jit Singh Vs. Sonu Kumar 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11061,
Kawal Sachdeva Vs. Madhu Bala Rana 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1479 and
Abbot India Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Mohindra 2014 SCC OnLine Del 231.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
26. It has been held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (1994)
1 SCC 1, Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, Bandhua
Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Ashok Kapoor
Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2523 that the
process of the Court cannot be permitted to be abused by such rank
tresspassers/encroachers of land and for defeating the purpose for which
the land was acquired.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1983
26. It has been held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (1994)
1 SCC 1, Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, Bandhua
Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Ashok Kapoor
Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2523 that the
process of the Court cannot be permitted to be abused by such rank
tresspassers/encroachers of land and for defeating the purpose for which
the land was acquired.
Ashok Kapoor & Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 11 March, 2014
26. It has been held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (1994)
1 SCC 1, Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, Bandhua
Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Ashok Kapoor
Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2523 that the
process of the Court cannot be permitted to be abused by such rank
tresspassers/encroachers of land and for defeating the purpose for which
the land was acquired.