S.A.BOBDE, L.NAGESWARA RAO
Vivek M. Hinduja – Appellant
Versus
M. Ashwatha – Respondent
ORDER :
1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Karnataka High Court, in which the appellants before us were held to be disentitled to the granted land purchased by them. The High Court in its judgment upheld the order of the single judge in view of the social welfare legislation, Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, "the Karnataka Act"), and on the ground that the original grantee of the lands was a member of the Scheduled Caste community, restored the lands back to the legal representatives of the original grantee.
2. The chronology of the events in the three appeals before us is different. The area of the lands and the original grantees are also different. The number of times the lands changed hands is also different. But a common feature of all these cases, which enable us to deal with them at the same time is the fact that after the Karnataka Act came into force on 01.01.1979, the competent authorities did not take any action till the year, 1998. It was then that they apparently took suo motu action and served notices on the appellants to show cause as to why the lands should not be
Pune Municipal Corporation vs. State of Maharashtra
Smith Vs. East Elloe Rural District Council
Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla vs. Hargovind Jasraj and Anr. (2013) 3 SCC 182
Manchegowda and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Sunkara Rajayalakshmi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka(2009) 12 SCC 193
Chhedi Lal Yadav and Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. and Ors. 2017(6) SCALE 459
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.