Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.37 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 3 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975
35. Another decision relied upon by the petitioner is reported in STATE OF
A.P. vs. VENKATA RAO 2 wherein it was held that if at any time the State
Government is satisfied that any of the condition on which exemption is granted
has not been complied with, it shall be competent for the state government to
withdraw by an order such exemption after giving reasonable opportunity.
The same has been complied with by the respondent authorities. Hence, the said
decision is in fact applicable to respondent authorities.
Bishan Das And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 19 April, 1961
39. The petitioner's counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court
reported in DISHAN DAS AND OTHER vs. STATE OF PUNJAB 5. The petitioner
relied on paragraph 14 of the said judgment wherein it was held that the action
of the government in taking law into their own hands and dispossessing the
petitioners by display of force exhibits a callous attitude in utter disregard to
normal requirements of rule of law apart from what might legitimately and
reasonably be expected from a Government. The said decision is not applicable to
the instant case on hand as the government has not taken forceful possession
without following any proper procedure.
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
In the other decision relied upon by the petitioner's counsel in
S.P.CHANGALVARAJU NAIDU vs. JAGANNATH6 it was held that fraud vitiates all
such acts is not disputed but there is no fraud committed in the case on hand by
the respondent authorities. Hence it is not applicable.
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd vs C.I.T., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, ... on 4 September, 1990
55. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in SARASWATHI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD., vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX8 wherein the apex court held that on
amalgamation of companies the transfer company loses its identity and merges
with the transferee company. In fact this decision is application to the present
writ petitions also as it was held by the apex court that true effect and character
of amalgamation depends on the terms of the scheme of merger. As per orders of
7
1996(3) SCC 6907
8
1990 (Supp) SCC 675
34
High Court of Bombay and Madras in Company petitions all assets and liabilities
of M/s.Hindustan Polymers were transferred in favour of Mc.Dowell Company
ltd.
Special Officer & Competent Authority ... vs P.S. Rao on 17 January, 2000
57. The other contention of the petitioner that even subsequent to vesting of
the land in the Government the petitioner is entitled to make a declaration under
Section 20(2) of the Act. substantiating its plea with the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in the matter of SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, ULC
HYDERBAD AND ANOTHER vs. P.S.RAO10, held that Section 20 application is
maintainable even if final order of vesting of excess land was passed under
Section 33 of the ULC Act but the instant case is not with respect to seeking
exemption under Section 20 of the Act, in fact exemption was granted and later
withdrawn for violation of conditions. Therefore the decision is not of much help
to support the case of the petitioner.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh,Rep., By Its ... vs G.V.Mohan And 5 Others on 27 March, 2014
In another decision relied upon by the petitioner in STATE OF A.P. vs.
G.V.MOHAN11 it was held that to decide the issue whether provisions of repeal
Act are attracted to the case on hand it is to see whether possession of vacant
9
2017(4) ALT 9
10
AIR 1000 SC 843
11
2014(4) ALD 757 (DB)
35
land remained with the declarant or not. The petitioner herein admits that
possession with APIIC and hence seeking to set aside the proceedings of the
respondents in allotting the land to APIIC. Hence it is evident that possession of
the vacant land is not with the declarant. Hence the above case has no application
to the present case.
Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar vs Dy.Collector & Competent Auth.& Ors on 29 February, 2012
In VINAYAK KASHINATH vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR12, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also held that where possession of land is not taken over by
the State Government, further proceedings under the Repeal Act will not survive.