Challenge to Land Tribunal order granting occupancy rights over service inam land. The land had vested in Government on abolition of village offices and was re-granted to the landlord before the tenant's Form No.7 application. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of deemed tenancy and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION No.29272 OF 1996 (KLRA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. KRISHNASWAMY IYENGAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS
ALL ARE R/O. NARAYANAGHATTA VILLAGE MUTHANALLUR POST ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G. PAPIREDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARUN PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATES)
2
AND:
3
R/AT HOSABOODANUR HALE BOODANUR POST MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G.M. AGA FOR R1 & R2; SMT. S.B. LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A); SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANGALORE IN A.L.R.A.635/1986 AND MAY BE PLEASED TO TRANSFER THE SAID APPEAL BEFORE THIS COURT.
THIS PETITION BEING HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Present writ petition is by the legal representatives of the original petitioner
K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar seeking quash of order dated 29.08.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal-the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A, contending inter alia ;
1.1. that land measuring 5 Acre 10 Guntas in Sy.No.147 of Narayanaghatta village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk is Shanbogh service Inam land and that the K Krishnaswamy Iyengar the original petitioner was the holder in occupation and cultivation of the said land.
1.2. that subsequent to abolition of Village
Offices in terms of the Karnataka Village Abolition Act, 1961 (KVOA Act) the said K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar had filed an application for re-grant of the said land
5
and on consideration of the same, the said land was re-granted in his favour by the Assistant Commissioner, Dodaballapur Sub-Division by order dated 30.06.1972 in case No.VOA(A)602/1969-70.
1.3. that one Smt. Timmakka, deceased respondent No.3 had made a claim for grant of occupancy rights in respect of a portion of said land measuring 2 Acres 25 guntas (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Subject Land') by filing an application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk on 16.11.1974 in case No.LRF.ATC/550-1975-76. That the land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk had granted occupancy rights in favour of Smt. Timmakka- the deceased respondent No.3 by an order dated 29.08.1979 in respect of the subject land. In furtherance thereof, a certificate of registration in Form No.10 was also issued to her in respect of 1 Acre 30 guntas on 04.03.1982.
6
1.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
29.08.1979, the original petitioner- K. Krishnaswamy Iyengar had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8579/1982. During pendency of the said writ petition, District Land Reforms Appellate Authority was established by virtue of an amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act 1961). Consequently, the said writ petition was transferred to the Appellate Authority and the same was renumbered as ALRA No.630/1986. That on abolition of Appellate Authority in the year 1990 and in view of the provision of Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1990 providing for filing of civil petition, the original petitioner filed a Civil Petition No.10219/1991 before this Court and the same was subsequently registered as W.P.No.29272/1996, which is the present petition.
7
1.5. This court on an earlier occasion by its
order dated 16.11.2005 had allowed the present writ petition quashing the order dated 29.08.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal granting the occupancy rights in favour Smt. Timmakka- the deceased respondent No.3 as above and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration with liberty to the parties to lead additional evidence, if any.
1.6. Subsequently, a Writ Petition
No.10872/2007 (LR) came to be filed by respondent No.4 herein claiming to be the purchaser of the subject land. Considering his plea, this court by order dated 08.02.2017 allowed the said writ petition in W.P.No.10872/2007 (LR) and recalled the order dated 16.11.2005 passed in the present writ petition, accordingly the same was restored to the file. It is in this background, the present petitioners are before this court.
8
2. Sri.G.Papi Reddy, learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submitted;
2.1. that the order of the tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of deceased Timmakka was unsustainable, inasmuch as, she was not a lawful tenant under deceased petitioner -K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar.
2.2. that in the Form No.7 filed on 16.11.1974 by her, she herself had declared to be in cultivation of the subject land since four years.
2.3. that consequent upon the abolition of village offices with effect 01.02.1963, the subject land vested with the Government and there was no possibility of creation of any tenancy by
9
K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar in favour of deceasedTimmakka.
2.4. that the said Timmakka is an unauthorised occupant and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. As such, the land tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain her application.
2.5. that respondent No.4 cannot derive any legal right or title over the subject property in terms of the deed of sale dated 20.06.2001 executed by legal representatives of Smt. Timmakka as they were brought on record in the pending proceedings. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
10
4.1. that the subject land had been admittedly re-granted in favour of K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar on 30.06.1972. It is only thereafter, the Timmakka had filed an application in Form No.7 on 16.11.1974. Besides, there is no denial by K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar with regard to Timmakka occupying and cultivating the subject land. Therefore, there was a valid creation of tenancy in favour of the said Timmakka. The Timmakka is thus a deemed tenant.
11
4.2. that the occupancy rights in respect of
subject land were granted in favour of Timmakka by the land tribunal based on the admission made by K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar, who was the respondent in the said proceedings.
4.3. that the grant of occupancy rights in favour
of Timmakka was under Section 45 of the KLR Act, 1961, and that in terms of Section 126, the provisions of said Act are applicable even to the tenants referred to under Section 8 of the KVOA Act.
4.4. that K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar had executed
a deed of sale dated 20.06.2001 along with his sons and brother conveying his portion of land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.147 in favour of respondent No.4. In the recitals of the said sale deed and in the schedule to the said sale deed, he has categorically admitted regarding Timmakka having filed an
12
application in Form No.7 and she having been granted occupancy rights in respect of subject land. That the petitioner is therefore estopped from claiming the contrary.
4.5. that acting upon the representation so made
by the K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar and his family members, respondent No.4 purchased subject property from the legal representatives of said Timmakka and has been thus in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and having obtained conversion of land has formed residential layout called "Teachers' Town" and has sold the sites therein to various third parties to the knowledge of the petitioner.
Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
13
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.4 has relied upon the following
citations in support of his arguments;
14
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
matter is that;
"(1) Whether the Land Tribunal is justified in holding late Timmakka was in possession of subject land as Tenant under K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar and was thus justified in conferring occupancy rights in her favour?
Regarding Grant of Occupancy Rights:
Perusal of the same reveal that an application in Form No.7 under Section 48A(1) of the KLR Act, 1961 has been filed on 16.11.1974 by Smt. Timmakka in respect of 2 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.147 claiming to be in her possession and cultivation as a Tenant under K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar for four years.
15
"¸ÀvÀåªÁV ºÉüÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
£Á£ÀÄ £ÁgÁAiÀÄtWÀlÖ ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.147gÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 25 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀ 10 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ £Á£Éà ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉãÉ. F d«ÄãÀÄ ©lÖgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ E®è. £À£Àß ¥Àw PÁ®ªÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£Éà ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉãÉ. 8 ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÁ®ªÁzÀgÀÄ. UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. 15 PÉƼÀUÀzÀµÀÄÖ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. F ªÀµÀðªÀÅ £Á£Éà ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀÄgÀĽ ¨É¼É ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
N¢¹ PÉý M¦àgÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ".
extracted hereunder;
"£Á£ÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî. ¥Àæw ªÀµÀðªÀÅ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãɅ….. PÉüÀ®Ä EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. (It is flase to suggest that I have not paid rents. I have paid every years and there are no arrears)"
16
12. Evidence/ statement of said
K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar recorded on 23.10.1978 is extracted hereunder;
"¸ÀvÀåªÁV ºÉüÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
F d«ÄãÀÄ ±Áå£ÀĨÁ«PÉ E£Á¬ÄwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, 2 ªÀµÀðPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAZÉAiÉÄà jÃUÁæAmï DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F d«ÄãÀ®èzÉà 3-20 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄägÀÄvÉÛ.
17
£Á£ÀÄ G¥ÁzÁåAiÀÄ£ÁV ¸ÀPÁðj ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. F d«ÄãÀÄ ©lÄÖ G½zÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. 1974-75PÉÌ ªÀÄÄAa£ÀªÀgÉ«UÀÆ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¥ÀºÀt¬ÄgÀÄvÉÛ. 2 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÉà ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.
N¢¹ PÉý M¦àgÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ".
(PÉ.PÀȵÀÚ¸Áé«Ä LAiÀÄåAUÀgï)
REGARDING CREATION OF THE TENANCY:
18
claimed herself to be in cultivation of subject land since four years. The term 'tenant' is defined under Section 2(34) of the KLR Act, 1961, which is as under;
"2(34). "Tenant" means an agriculturist (who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease) from a landlord and includes.-
(i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;
(ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the Karnataka Tenants(Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961;
[(ii-a) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease under a lease created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.]
(iii) a person who is a permanent tenant; and
(iv) a person who is a protected tenant.
Explanation.- A person who takes up a contract to cut grass, or to gather the fruits or other produce of any land, shall not on that account only be deemed to be a tenant;]"
'persons to be deemed tenants', which is as under;
19
" 4. Persons to be deemed tenants.- A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not.-
(a) a member of the owner's family, or
(b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family, or
(c) a mortgagee in possession:
Provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one year from the appointed day;
(i) the (Tribunal) declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is not reversed on appeal, or
(ii) the (Tribunal) refuses to make such declaration but its decision is reversed on appeal.
Such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant."
the petitioner submitted that since the land stood vested with the Government with effect from 01.02.1963 there could not have been valid creation
20
of lease/tenancy by the original petitionerK.Krishnaswamy Iyengar in favour of Timmakka. Even if, the re-grant in favour of K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar was made on 30.06.1972, since in the application in Form No.7, said Timmakka is claiming to be in cultivation of the land over four years, it has to be presumed that she was in unauthorised cultivation of the subject land. Therefore, there was no question of she being a tenant for grant of land under Section 48A of the KLR Act, 1961.
"20. From the above discussion, it is clear that after resumption of land on 01.02.1963 which was merely held as emoluments by erstwhile Watandar he ceased to have any right or interest in the property and therefore, he had no authority to transfer the lands and therefore, the lease agreement dated
21
09.02.1970 was ab void initio. As such, taking of possession of land in question by the petitioner pursuant to the said lease was clearly unauthorised."
Court in the case of Hanumanthaiah (supra) wherein
at paragraph 8 this Court is held as under;
"8. So far as, the arguments about taking advantage of Section 8 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act is concerned, it suffices to say that the applicant is not in possession of land and Section 8 requires that to claim as a tenant under Tenancy law, applicant should be a tenant on the date on which the Act came in to force i.e., 01.02.1963".
Court in the case of K.R. Mahadevappa (supra), this Hon'ble Court had framed following points for consideration at paragraph 11, which reads as under;
"1. Whether the tribunal and the learned single judge have considered the effect of execution of a registered lease deed dated 02.10.1967 after the land is
22
vested in the Government under the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961?.
2. Whether the person who had executed a lease had a valid right to execute the lease?
3. Whether Gangadharappa was in possession of land as a tenant prior to the land vesting in the Government.?
23
submits that there is no creation of a valid tenancy and the occupation of Timmakka was unauthorised.
"22. We shall next take up the main point that after the village offices stood abolished under Section 4(1) of the Village Offices (Abolition) Act, 1961 and the emoluments of the office holders stood "resumed" under Section 4(3), the lands became "Government Lands" and hence, Section 107 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 excluded such "Government Lands" from the purview of that Act (including Section 45) and it was only the question of regrant of those lands under the village offices (Abolition) act , 1961 was finally decided that the lands ceased to be "Government Lands" and it became possible to know who the landlord was, that Form No.7 application could be filed."
24
12, 13 and 14 it has been held as under;
"12. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, we think it is just and proper to refer to the provisions of Section 8 of the KVOA Act, which reads as under:
“Application of tenancy law.— If any land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed date, the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force in the area in which the land is situate, shall apply to the said lease and the rights and liabilities of the person to whom such land is granted under Section 5, 6 or 7 and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be governed by the provisions of the said tenancy law.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, the expression “land” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the tenancy law referred to above”.
13. The perusal of Section 8 of the above provision reveals that if any land granted
25
or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State has been lawfully leased and such lease was subsisting on the appointed date (1-21963), the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force in the area in which the land is situate, shall apply to the said lease. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 5 of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1908 which did not prohibit the leases of service inam lands, when such lease was neither permanent nor for a long period and was not a ‘transfer’ which is prohibited by Section 5 of the said Act. So, in view of the above said provision, if the appellants are successful in establishing that there was a lawful subsisting lease on the appointed date, the appellants are entitled to the grant of occupancy rights. Furthermore, we feel it just and proper to refer to the provisions of Section 126 of the KLR Act, which reads as under:
“Application of Act to inams.— For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act insofar as they confer any rights and impose obligations on tenants and landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands (including tenants referred to in Section 8 of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 but subject to the provisions of the said Act) and to landlords and inamdar holding in such villages or lands”.
14. By this provision, it was declared that the provisions of this Act insofar as they
26
confer any rights and impose obligations on tenants and landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands (including tenants referred to in Section 8 of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 but subject to the provisions of the said Act). The italicised portion in the above provision was inserted by Act No. 1 of 1979, with effect from 1-1-1979, thereby even in respect of lands which fall within the category of Section 8 of the KVOA Act, the provisions of the KLR Act were also made applicable and thereby if the appellants are successful in proving that they are the occupants of the lands as lawful tenants are entitled to the grant of occupancy rights".
it is clear that until and unless, the lands which stood vested with the Government effective from 01.02.1963 in terms of KVOA Act, 1961 were regranted in favour of village office holder, no effective lease could be granted, as the lands till then remained "Government Lands" . There cannot be any dispute on this principle of law.
27
28
"Government Land". The application for occupancy right has been made on 16.11.1974, wherein the said Timmakka claims to be in cultivation of the land for four years prior to the date of application. Though, a specific date of creation of lease is not mentioned, the material made available before the tribunal as noted hereinabove, more particularly, the cross-examination of Timmakka as noted above by K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar, wherein except suggesting non-payment of rental, no other suggestion of her possession being unlawful is made. The said Timmakka in her chiefexamination as well as in the cross-examination has categorically asserted that she has been paying rentals. This suggests that the lease was created in her favour. K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar has even admitted before the tribunal that Timmkakka being in cultivation of the land during the year 1975-76 and he is serving as a Teacher in a Government school. The
29
name of Timmakka has been reflected in the revenue records for the year 1975-79 in the cultivators column. The Land Tribunal had even granted interim order in her favour restraining the K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar and his family members from interfering with her enjoyment of her subject property. Under these fact situations of the matter, in view of the definition of 'deemed tenant' provided under KLR Act, 1961, as extracted hereinabove the preponderance of probabilities suggests that an inference of Smt. Timmakka being a tenant under K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar can be safely drawn and the Land Tribunal is therefore justified in granting occupancy right in her favour in respect of subject land. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner are of no avail.
30
maintained by the tribunal, more particularly, with regard to the admission made by K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar cannot be relied upon as the same were disputed and denied. In response to the said submission, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4 relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMDAS SRINIVAS NAYAK AND ANOTHER reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463, wherein the Apex Court at para 4 has held that;
"4. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in the judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the
31
record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there".
applies to the facts of the present case. Even as noted above the said K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar has not only admitted the possession of Timmakka before the Land Tribunal but, has even admitted the same in the sale deed executed by him in favour of respondent No.4 which is dealt with hereunder. Therefore, the submission regarding the dispute of the admission made by K.Krishnaswamy Iyengar before the Tribunal cannot be countenanced.
Sale of subject land in favour of respondent No.4
32
"Out of the said regranted land, an extent of One acre and Thirty guntas of land, occupancy rights was claimed by one Smt.Thimmakka by filing form No.7 and she was granted with the occupancy rights. Thus, the vendors are now holding and enjoying the remaining Three acres and Twenty Guntas of land, which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter called the Schedule property."
And the description of the property of the
schedule of the said sale deed is as under;
"East By : Portion of land bearing Sy.No.147 belonging to Smt. Thimmakka; West By : Land bearing Sy.No.68 belonging to Sri. Nanjappa Reddy and Sri.M.Ramaswamy Reddy; North By : Land bearing Sy.No.146 belonging to Sri.Raja Reddy and Sri.Somashekara Reddy and South By : Land bearing Sy.No.148"
33
schedule to the deed of sale, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the aforesaid deed of sale containing the said details operates as promissory estoppel against the petitioner. In the aforesaid sale deed, the petitioner has made representation regarding grant of occupancy rights in respect of the subject land in favour of said Timmakka. That, acting upon the said representation the respondent No.4 went ahead and purchased subject land from the legal representatives of Timmakka in terms of deed of sale dated 20.6.2001. He relies upon the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of Turner Morrison (supra) on the principles of promissory estoppel, Suneeta Aggarawal (supra) on the principles of acquiescence and waiver.
34
admission made by the original petitioner before the tribunal and his subsequent conduct in the nature of executing the deed of sale specifically referring to the right of Smt. Timmakka, the judgments referred to on the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver would apply to the instant case.
ORDER
1. The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RU
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Land Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased tenant was in possession and cultivation of the subject land as a tenant and in conferring occupancy rights in her favour?
Whether a valid tenancy could be created by the re-granted holder after the land had vested in the Government but before its re-grant?
Whether the recitals in the sale deed estopped the petitioners from denying the tenant's occupancy rights?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shidrammappa Bheemappa Asangi and others vs. State of Karnataka and othersDistinguished¶25
Shidrammappa Bheemappa Asangi and other vs. State of Karnataka and othersILR 2001 Kar. 5072.
Hanumanthaiah and others vs. The Land Tribunal and othersDistinguished¶18
Hanumanthaiah and others vs. The land Tribunal and others- ILR 2003 Kar. 1410. · Who else cites this
K.R. Mahadevappa vs. Ramanna (since deceased by LRs and others)Distinguished¶20
K.R. Mahadevappa vs. Ramanna (since deceased by LRs and others ) -2014 (6) Kar.LJ 419.
A. Sudhakar vs. State of Karnataka and othersDistinguished¶21
A.Sudhakar vs. State of Karnataka and others -2006(2) Kar.L.J 253.
K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and othersReferred
K.D.Sharma v.s Steel authority of India Limited and others- (2008) 12 SCC 481. · Who else cites this
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and othersReferred
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society And Others -2013 AIR SCW 34. · Who else cites this
Turner Morrison and Company Limited vs. Hungerford Investment Trust LimitedApplied¶31
Turner Morrison and Company Limited vs. Hungerford Investment Trust Limited(1972) 1 SCC 857. · Who else cites this
Suneeta Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana and othersApplied¶31
Suneeta Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana and others - (2000) 2 SCC 615. · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra vs. Ramadas Srinivas Nayak and othersApplied¶27
State of Maharasthra vs., Ramadas Srinivas Nayak and others -(1982) 2 SCC 463. · Who else cites this
Chandra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and anotherReferred
Chandra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another- (2003) 6 SCC 545. · Who else cites this
R. Rudraiah and another vs. State of Karnataka and othersRelied on¶22
R Rudraiah and another vs. State of Karnataka and others- (1998) 3 SCC 23. · Who else cites this
N.C. Gangaraju (since dead) by his LRs and another vs. State of Karnataka and othersRelied on¶23
N.C.Gangaraju (since dead) by his LRs and another vs. State of Karnataka and others(2009) 5 Kar.LJ 240.
K. Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and othersReferred
K.Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others -(2021) SCC online SC 1194. · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
K. Keshava Iyengar
K. Jayaramu
State of Karnataka
Land Tribunal, Anekal
Thimakka (since dead) by LRs
B.S. Shivarama
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court