Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Pillamma (Dead) VS M. Ramaiah Reddy (Dead) Through LRs. ...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 660 : Yes, a land parcel in a village notified under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Act can be granted by the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The court held that the scope and purport of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (including Section 45) and the Karnataka (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 are different, and termination of proceedings under the 1954 Act regarding grant of occupancy rights does not bar an enquiry under Section 45 of the 1961 Act by the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal is empowered to determine whether lands claimed by an applicant had vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the 1961 Act, and whether they were held by or in possession of any tenant immediately prior to 1st March, 1974, which is the date of vesting. The court affirmed that the Land Tribunal''''s finding in conferring occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent was not based on any manifest error, thereby confirming the Tribunal''''s authority to grant occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act even in lands previously subject to the Inams Abolition Act.Checking relevance for Venkateshappa VS State of Karnataka...
2008 2 Supreme 325 : A land parcel in a village notified under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 may be subject to determination by the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 only if the Tribunal first ascertains whether the land is an ''''Inam land''''. If the land is found to be an Inam land, the matter must be referred to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition for decision. If the land is not an Inam land, then the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to proceed under the Land Reforms Act. Thus, the Land Tribunal can grant or decide on such land parcels under the Land Reforms Act only after determining that the land is not an Inam land.Checking relevance for Prem Nath Raina VS State Of J & K...
Checking relevance for Yadaiah VS State of Telangana...
Checking relevance for State Of W. B. VS Ashish Kumar Roy...
Checking relevance for G. H. Grant VS State Of Bihar...
Checking relevance for State of Haryana Through Secretary To Government of Haryana VS Jai Singh...
Checking relevance for Ramu VS State of Karnataka...
2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1180 : A land parcel classified as a tank or tankbed, including a tank bund area, cannot be granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, as such land is explicitly prohibited from being granted under Section 7(1)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the Land Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights for such land parcels, even if they are located in a village notified under the Act.Checking relevance for K. Sudhir Kumar vs State of A.P. rep. by Prl. Secretary to Government...
Checking relevance for Kamaljeet Bajwa VS Government of NCT of Delhi...
Checking relevance for Rajeev Shah (deceased) Through Lr Ms. Gayatri Shah VS Government of NCT of Delhi...
Checking relevance for Sabia Sultana VS State of Telangana...
Checking relevance for R. Rudraiah VS State of Karnataka...
Checking relevance for S. Nagaraj (dead) by LRs. VS B. R. Vasudeva Murthy...
Checking relevance for M. S. NARAYANAGOUDA VS GIRIJAMMA...
Checking relevance for State of Mysore VS M. L. Nagade And Gadag...
Checking relevance for Special Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation Officer, Sagar VS M. S. Seshagiri Rao...
Checking relevance for K. B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS (DEAD) BY LRS. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA...
Checking relevance for Godavari Sugar Mills VS S. B. Kamble...
Checking relevance for KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF VS LAND TRIBUNAL,SIRA...
Checking relevance for N. Munihanumiah VS Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk...
2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1439 : Yes, a land parcel in a village notified under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act can be granted by the land tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, provided the tenant has filed an application for grant of occupancy rights. The court held that after lands stood vested in the State under the Inams Abolition Act, the State is empowered to grant occupancy rights to tenants who have applied in Form, and only such tenants who prove they were cultivating the land as tenants on the appointed date are entitled to such rights. Failure to file such an application results in the extinguishment of the right to occupancy. In this case, the respondents'''' predecessors in title were found to have cultivated the land and filed the application, leading to the grant of occupancy rights by the Tribunal.Checking relevance for VENUGOPALA SINGH VS B. M. CHIKKAPUTTAPPA...
1991 0 Supreme(Kar) 237 : A land parcel in a village notified under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act cannot be granted by the land tribunal under the Land Reforms Act because the village had already ceased to be a jodi inam village and vested in the state on 2 October 1958, rendering the claim under the Certain Inams Abolition Act not available to the petitioner. The court held that the claim under the Certain Inams Abolition Act was not maintainable, and Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act had no application to the facts of the case, as the land was no longer an ''''inam'''' at the time the relevant legislation was enacted.
