Back
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, M. H. KANIA
State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: Tahsildar: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: Tahsildar: State of Karnataka: State of Karnataka: Tehsildar: Te – Appellant
Versus
G. Seenappa: D. Navinlappa: Bhimana Gowda Saheb Gowda Biradar: Revasingh: B. Sonne Gowda: Ab. Nanjawangowda: M. Narayanappa: Muneppa: Bajantri Munivehkatappa: Shakuntala Bai: Channabasappa: Veerappa Mudekappa Mudenoors: B. C. Ramaiah: Ningappa: – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ORDER:- Learned counsel for the petitioners, the State of Karnataka and others, has sought to challenge the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, (1981) 1 Kant LJ1 which has been followed by that High Court in the impugned judgments. As we are of the view that the judgment in Lakshmana Gowdas case deserves to be upheld, it is not necessary for us to set out the facts except the barest minimum necessary.
2. The Karnataka-Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short the said Act) came into effect from Feb. 1, 1963. It is common ground that under the said Act the lands given to the village officers were resumed and then re-granted to them. The re-grants were made at different periods. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 5 of the said Act placed a restriction on transfer of land regranted. It runs as follows :-
"(3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, regranted under sub-sec. (1) shall not be transferable otherwise than by partition among members of Hindu joint family without the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and such sanction shall be granted only on payment of an amo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
