Back
K. SOMASHEKAR, UMESH M. ADIGA
Shivapal, S/o. Sri. M. Kalasappa Gowda – Appellant
Versus
V. Ramprasad S/o. Late V. Varadaraju – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42727/2013 (SC/ST) dated 29.09.2015. The aforesaid writ petition was decided along with W.P.Nos.19997 to 19998/2013 by rendering a common judgment. The said writ petition W.P.No.19997-19998/2013 was filed challenging the orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'KAT') in Appeal No.980/2009 dated 26.04.2013 on I.A.No.10. However, the order passed in W.P.No.19997-19998/2013 is not challenged by the aggrieved party. Therefore, there is no need to discuss about the facts of the said writ proceedings.
2. The subject matter of this litigation relates to Survey No.30 of Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk totally measuring 3 acres, out of which the subject matter of case suit is 2 acres. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition, by its order dated 15.09.1958, conferred occupancy right in respect of Survey No.30 measuring 3 acres of Kadiganahalli Village of Bengaluru North Taluk in favour of one Kinchanna Bhovi @ Vaddara Channa Bhovi under the provisions of the Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inamss Abolition Ac
Point of law: Every appeal preferred after expiry of period specified in Sec. 5-A, of Act shall be accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn to by....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law, malafides, and highhandedness in the resumption and restoration of land, leading to the demolition of structures, and ....
Point of law: Decree – Condonation of delay in filing Appeal – Held, appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, where there was a delay of around 3 years 10 months would any way have been condo....
Point of law : Special Deputy Commissioner is entitled to go into the merits of the matter including question of delay and laches in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner.
A grantee cannot file a second application for land resumption after a prior rejection, as it violates principles of estoppel and res judicata.
Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; claims of land ownership based on fraudulent documents cannot establish valid title.
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
