V.S.DESHPANDE, HARISH CHANDRA
KUNDAN LAL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal raises the same perennial question of how to distinguish between an error within jurisdiction and an error outside jurisdiction which has defied any general answer and has to be considered on the facts of each case in the light of the law applicable thereto.
( 2 ) THE Facts: The acquired evacuee property being house No. 111/395-396 (old), or VI/773/774 (new), Mehrauli, Delhi, is occupied by the appellant, Kundan Lal, as also by respondents 2 and 3, Moti Ram and his wife Rukmani Devi, in separate portions. The appellant, Kundan Lal occupies an area larger than the area occupied by respondents 2 and 3. The area held by the "appellant) Kundan Lal, is an "allotment" within the meaning of the definition given in Section 2 (a) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which definition has been made applicable to the Displaced Persons (Gom, pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, by Section 2 (h) thereof. Smrirally, respondent No. 3, Rukmani Devi is the allottee of the portion of the house in which she lives with her husband, respondent No. 2, Moti Ram. The contrast between Moti Ram, on the one hand, and Kundan Lal and Ru
REFERRED TO : Firm and Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons v. The State of AndhraPradesh
Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta and Bros
Bata Shoe Co v. City of Jabalpur Corporation
Smt Jamna Bai v. Union of India
Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta and Bros
Katikara Chintamani Dora v. Guatreddi Annamanaidu and others
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.