Back
ALOK ARADHE, N. V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration – Appellant
Versus
Manu Bhai Shankar Bhai Patel – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recourses under the ulc act must meet actual possession requirements. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of land ownership and agreements (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 22) |
| 3. final conclusions on appeals and writ petitions (Para 4 , 80 , 89) |
| 4. court’s analysis of compliance with legal provisions (Para 8 , 9 , 50 , 56) |
| 5. arguments on the legality of possession and contempt claims (Para 10 , 12 , 35 , 46) |
| 6. government directives on land management must follow established legal standards. (Para 34 , 86) |
| 7. symbolic possession lacks legal significance post repeal without proper authority. (Para 49 , 74) |
| 8. status quo orders mandate compliance to uphold judicial integrity of prior judgments. (Para 70 , 75) |
| 9. ratio decidendi focusing on government powers post repeal (Para 88 , 90) |
JUDGMENT :
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.
Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of K.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.12572 of 2003.
Mr. A. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A. No.657 of 2011, respondent No.21 in W.A. No.979 of 2013 and petitioners in C.C. No.1084 of 2021.
Mr. K.Ram Red
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
