Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Section 5 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 133 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Section 85 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Gundaji Satwaji Shinde vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi on 5 December, 1978
In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi , it was held that:
Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr. on 4 October, 1974
Placing reliance upon the above decision, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the entries made in the RTC extract in favour of the present respondent 2 from 1972, and in favour of the previous owner of the land prior to 1972 from 1957, when once it is found that there is no valid surrender of tenancy rights by the father of the revision petitioner, the original tenant (father of the revision petitioner) must be deemed to be in possession of the land in dispute during his lifetime and after his death, the present revision petitioner must be deemed to be in possession of the said land and the presumptive value attached to the entries made in the RTC records stands rebutted.
Koraga Marakala And Anr. vs Kamala And Ors. on 19 November, 1987
6. I have carefully gone through the orders passed by the Land Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Authority. Both the said authorities have
not examined the question as to whether there was valid surrender of tenancy rights by the father of the revision petitioner in favour of the original owner in respect of the land in dispute in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 5(3)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 read with Rule 2-A of the Rules framed thereunder, the Appellate Authority mainly relied upon the Ending recorded by the Civil Court in this regard, in suit, O.S. No. 224 of 1972 by the Court of Munsiff, Belgaum, which was confirmed in Appeal, R.A. No. 12 of 1973 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the said question in view of the specific bar under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. This position is made clear by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Koraga Marakala and Another v Smt. Kamala and Others.
Section 70 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1