Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.41 seconds)
State Of H.P. And Others vs Jagan Nath Sharma on 10 June, 2024 cites

State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011

possession for more than 17 years and the plaintiff is not entitled to possession. This cannot be accepted. The defendants are the State and its instrumentalities. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769: 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1341 that the State cannot take the plea of adverse possession to grab the property of its citizens. If the protectors of the law will become grabbers of the property, then the people will be left with no protection and there will be total anarchy in the entire country. It was observed at page 419
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 472 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Sh. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar Etc Etc vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 July, 1994

25. Concluding that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative [Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai 2005 Supp (3) SCR 388; N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. 2011 (12) SCR 191; and Jilubhai Nanbhai Kahchar v. State of Gujarat 1994 Supp (1) SCR 807.] of both their human right and constitutional right under Article 3 00-A, this court allowed the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 378 - Full Document

K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2011

served by this Court in K.T. Plantation Private Limited and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 even though the right to claim compensation or the obligation of the State to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his property is not expressly provided in Article 300A of the Constitution, it is inbuilt in the Article. The State seeking to acquire private property for a public purpose cannot say that no compensation shall be paid. The Regional and Town Planning Act also does not contemplate deprivation of a landholder of his land, without compensation. Statu- tory authorities are bound to pay adequate compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 156 - Cited by 232 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Wazir Chand vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh.(With ... on 22 April, 1954

14. It is the cardinal principle of the rule of law, that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law. The recognition of this dates back to the 1700s to the decision of the King's Bench in Entick v. Carrington, [1765] EWHC (KB) 198 and by this court in Wazir Chand v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1955 (1) SCR 408. Further, in several judgments, this court has repeatedly held that rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, the State often has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, and therefore, not tarnished the basic principle of the rule of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 97 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next