Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Geetha Lakshmi K. VS State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for R. R. Engineering Company: Shital Prasad VS Zila Parishad, Bareilly: Town Area Committee, Kuraoli...
Checking relevance for Prakash Chand Maheshvvari VS Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar...
Prakash Chand Maheshvvari VS Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar - 1971 0 Supreme(SC) 325 : Section 120(1) of the U.P. Zila Parishad Act, 1961 provides for the continuance of the imposition of ''''circumstances and property'''' tax that was imposed or continued under the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922, until such time as it is abolished or altered. This section confirms that such taxes, along with all related rules, regulations, bye-laws, orders, and notifications, remain in force as if enacted under the U.P. Zila Parishad Act, 1961.Checking relevance for State Of H. P. VS Surinder Singh Banolta...
State Of H. P. VS Surinder Singh Banolta - 2006 9 Supreme 15 : Under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, if a person was declared an encroacher or disqualified prior to the date on which he was declared as an elector and the order of disqualification has attained finality, the question of whether he stood disqualified under Section 122 of the Act must be raised by way of an election petition alone. This is in accordance with Clause (b) of Article 243O of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no election shall be set aside except by an order passed by the Authorised Officer. The Deputy Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to determine disqualification arising after the election process is over; such matters are to be addressed through election petitions.Checking relevance for Cheriyath Jyothi VS Sainudeen...
Checking relevance for Manje Gowda S/o Late Shri Kempe Gowda VS State of Karnataka...
Manje Gowda S/o Late Shri Kempe Gowda VS State of Karnataka - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 158 : Section 267 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 confers powers only for the purpose of suspension of any particular action pending enquiry, and does not grant any authority to cancel khatha (land record). The court held that the respondents (Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat) had no jurisdiction to cancel the khatha under Section 237 or Section 267, as these sections do not empower them to cancel khatha. The court further emphasized that appropriate proceedings under Section 269 would be required for any such action, which were not followed in this case.Checking relevance for Nagaraju, S/o Late Siddashetty vs Puttalakshmamma Dead By Lrs....
Nagaraju, S/o Late Siddashetty vs Puttalakshmamma Dead By Lrs. - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 388 : The Zilla Panchayath, Mandya allowed Appeal No.34/2011-12, which was filed by the plaintiff challenging the order of the Taluka Panchayath, Maddur. The Zilla Panchayath''''s order dated 07.08.2012 quashed the Taluka Panchayath''''s decision and directed that the khatha of the suit property be made in the name of the plaintiff. This decision was part of the legal proceedings following the plaintiff''''s claim to ownership based on a sale deed, and the Zilla Panchayath''''s intervention was crucial in affirming the plaintiff''''s title to the property, despite the pending challenge before the High Court of Karnataka.Checking relevance for Yusub S/o Mohamusab Sanadi VS State Of Karnataka...
Yusub S/o Mohamusab Sanadi VS State Of Karnataka - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 157 : The judgment explicitly addresses the responsibilities of Zilla Panchayats in relation to stray dog management and public safety. It holds that Zilla Panchayats, like BBMP (Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike), are legally obligated under public law to ensure the sterilization and vaccination of stray dogs within their jurisdiction. The court directed that Animal Welfare Organisations and Monitoring Committees must implement complete sterilization and vaccination of healthy stray dogs as per Rules 7 and 8 of the ABC Rules, 2001. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the obligations imposed on BBMP in Master Jishnu’s case apply equally to Zilla Panchayats, Taluk Panchayats, and Village Panchayats, regardless of nomenclature. This establishes a clear legal precedent that Zilla Panchayats are accountable for preventing harm caused by street dogs and must take proactive measures to control stray dog populations.
