Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.66 seconds)
Kartar Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 December, 2018 cites

Dr. Rajbir Solanki And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 February, 2008

In such circumstances, the law explained in Dr Rajbir Solanki v. Union of India (supra) would apply. Although the said decision was rendered in WP(C) 6287& 6297/2014and Cont. Cas (C) 212/2015 Page 16 of 19 the context of the prayer for de-notification of land under Section 48 of the LAA, it would be relevant even in the present case. There the official records were produced before the Court to show that the possession of the land in question stood taken over on 1st November, 1999. Yet, the Petitioners before the Court were claiming to be still cultivating the land in question. In that context, it is observed by the Court as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - T S Thakur - Full Document

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Igate Global Solutions Limited on 26 February, 2016

(iii) Reference is also made to the circular dated 14 th March 2014 of the Government of India, Land and Building Department clarifying the expression „physical‟. Mr. Gupta reiterated that the Petitioners are still ploughing their lands and that the possession memo prepared by the LAC WP(C) 6287& 6297/2014and Cont. Cas (C) 212/2015 Page 10 of 19 was „fake and fabricated.‟ He claimed that the compensation was „forced upon‟ the Petitioners. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Gate Global Solutions Limited 2016 (2) CTC 241 and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sunita Sehrawat v. State of Haryana 2015 (4) RCR (Civil) 528.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 24 - S K Agnihotri - Full Document

Sunita Sahrawat And Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 29 May, 2015

(iii) Reference is also made to the circular dated 14 th March 2014 of the Government of India, Land and Building Department clarifying the expression „physical‟. Mr. Gupta reiterated that the Petitioners are still ploughing their lands and that the possession memo prepared by the LAC WP(C) 6287& 6297/2014and Cont. Cas (C) 212/2015 Page 10 of 19 was „fake and fabricated.‟ He claimed that the compensation was „forced upon‟ the Petitioners. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Gate Global Solutions Limited 2016 (2) CTC 241 and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sunita Sehrawat v. State of Haryana 2015 (4) RCR (Civil) 528.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 7 - A G Masih - Full Document

M/S Magnum Promoters P.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2014

36. The requirement in terms of the law as explained in Balwant Narayan Bagde (supra), Prahlad Singh (supra), Magnum Promoters (supra) and Velaxan Kumar (supra) that a panchnama has to be drawn up and be signed by independent witnesses cannot be raised in the present case in view of the clear admission by the Petitioners in writing that the actual physical possession of the land in question was taken from them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 140 - V G Gowda - Full Document
1   2 3 Next