SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Kar) 164

VENKATACHALAIAH
VITTAL – Appellant
Versus
LAND TRIBUNAL, SUPA – Respondent


Advocates:
T.S.MOHAMAD ALI, T.S.RAMACHANDRAN

( 1 ) THE point which arises for my consideration and decision relates to payment of court fee on a petition filed; under Article 226 of the Constrtution of India It arises thus: - respondents-3, 4 and 5 had. made three applications under Section 48-A (1) of the Karnataka, Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be, hereinafter referred to as the Land Reforms Act), to the Land Tribunal, Supa a tribunal constituted under the Act, each of them seeking that he may be registered as occupant in respect of the three parcels of lands in the, ownership of the, petitioner. The three applications filed by respts 3 4 and 5, though has been numbered separately, were clubbed together by the' Tribunal for being disposed; of on a common enquiry as the applications contained rival claims for grant of occupancy of the same parcels of lands in. the ownership of the petitioner. In. the course of the commann, enquiry held by the Tribunal in respect of the said three applications, respondents'3, 4 and 5 made statements restricting the claim made by each one of them for grant of occupancy to one of the three parcels of lands referred to above. The Land Tribunal concluded! the common enquiry by making a, common order














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top