Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.27 seconds)Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
21. Having regard to the above discussion it is obvious that the rule that applies in India is that a general Act applies to citizens as well as to State unless it expressly or by necessary implication exempts the State from its operation. The same rule will also apply to Government bodies and the Corporations situated under special Act. Vide Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra).
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982
Gouni Satya Reddi vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 6 May, 2004
Unlike the same, in Satya Reddi's case (supra) the possession of the disputed land by Satya Reddi, the appellant, was neither unauthorized nor without any entitlement thereto. He purchased the property under a registered sale deed. No knowledge to the effect that the power of attorney in favour of the executant purported to have been executed by the original owner was forged could be attributed to the appellant having regard to the fact that he had taken sufficient precaution by giving a paper notification inviting objections in regard thereto before purchasing the property. Therefore, neither intention to grab the land nor knowledge that the power of attorney of the executant of the sale deed was a fabricated one could be attributed to the appellant. It is thus fairly a case that the appellant cannot be called as a grabber. The ratio in both the cases shall have to be understood in that perspective.
Section 3 in Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Konda Lakshmana Bapuji vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 January, 2002
Inasmuch as the appellant purchased the property by means of a regular registered sale deed and prior thereto he got a notice published in a newspaper inviting objections, it was a clear case where the appellant had not occupied the land unauthorisedly without any lawful entitlement thereto and with a view to do any of the acts that are enumerated inter alia in Section 2(e) of the Act unlike in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji 's case (supra). The ratio in both the cases shall have to be thus discerned from that matrix. We, therefore, see no cleavage in the view expressed by the Apex Court in both the cases.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Prameela Modi And Ors. on 26 April, 2005
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pramila Modi and Ors. , a Division Bench of this Court placing reliance upon Gouni Satya Reddi v. Government of A.P. and Ors. (supra), case at the end of Para 37 held thus:
Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan vs Shahsun Finance Limited on 11 March, 2005
In Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan v. Shahsun Finance Ltd. Chennai , a Full Bench of this Court considered the concept of the expression 'taking cognizance'.
M. Yadagiri Reddy vs V.C. Brahmanna And Anr. on 3 December, 2004
In M Yadagiri Reddy v. V.C. Brahmanna , a Division Bench of this Court again while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court of Konda Laxamana Bapuji's case (supra) and Gouni Satya Reddi's case (supra), in Para 19 held thus:
Hindusthan Aeronautics Employees ... vs Special Court Constituted Under A.P. ... on 7 October, 2004
In Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Special Court (Land Grabbing) , a Larger Bench of this Court consisting of five Judges had to consider a pigment question, whether an allegation of attempt to grab land attracts the jurisdiction of the Special Court to entertain cases or not?