Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Sri Munieerappa vs The State Of Karanataka on 4 February, 2020 cites

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2017

6. It is not in dispute that the land in question measuring 2 acres was originally granted in favour of one Chikkaeerappa. The same is evident from saguvali chit extract vide Annexure-B dated 07.12.1954. The original grantee in turn sold the land in favour of one Balakrishna in the year 1961, who in turn sold the land to one Chikkamuniyappa in the year 1963 and the said Chikkamuniyappa in turn sold the land in favour of Varghese in the year 2004. Varghese has formed a layout and sold the sites in favour of respondents 4 to 40. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979., the application filed by the legal representatives 14 of the original grantee under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner is in the year 2006 and there is a delay of 26 years in filing the application for resumption of land. The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) has held as hereinbelow:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 373 - Full Document

Chhedi Lal Yadav(D) Thr. Lr. And Ors. vs Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. And Ors. on 12 September, 2017

"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 269 - Full Document

Jotiba Ningappa Patil vs The Competent Authority, Belgaum Urban ... on 26 May, 1998

& Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for 15 restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - Full Document

R. Rudrappa vs Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga ... on 4 November, 1998

Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 238 - M Anwar - Full Document
1