Judgments - Land and Disputes
Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others V/s State Of U.P. And 6 Others
ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. INDIRA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL & ORS
RAM DUTT(D) TR.LRS.& ORS. Vs. DEV DUTT(D) TR.LRS.& ORS.
ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. Vs. RAJAN SOI & ORS.
MAHENDRA BHIMRAO KHARAT AND ORS. Vs. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.
JAIDEV INDER SINGH Vs. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST
RAMAKANT DWIVEDI Vs. RAFIQ AHMAD AND ORS.
SRI CH.NARASIMHA RAO & ORS. Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ELURU & ORS.
LALARAM & ORS. Vs. JAIPUR DEVT.AUTH.& ANR.
NUNEY TAYANG Vs. KODELUM TAYANG & ORS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA
The doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application when the legislature has enacted a statute. The legitimate expectation should be legitimate, reasonable and valid. For the application of doctrine of legitimate expectation, any representation or promise should be made by an authority. A person unconnected with the authority, who had Full Judgment
RAM BAHAL & ANR. Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION & ORS.
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHALKI, KARNATAKA Vs. GURAPPA(D) BY LRS & ANR.
RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA AND ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
SMT. SHANTI DEVI Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
N.M.KRISHNAKUMARI & ORS. Vs. THALAKKAL ASSIYA & ORS.
Whether the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Act in re-examining the case and holding that the findings of the Appellate Authority are not only erroneous but also error in law? The Appellate Authority has completely ignored the undisputed pleadings and material documents on record in favour of the respondents and the said finding of the Appellate Authority is erroneous Full Judgment
STATE OF KARNATAKA TR.SEC.HSG.& URB.&ANR Vs. VASAVADATTA CEMENT & ANR.
The appeal has been preferred by the State of Karnataka. The State has neither created any document nor filed the same before the High Court or this Court. If any document is created by any officer to keep it on record so as to produce it before the Court, it is a serious matter which requires to be inquired into by the concerned authority. In Full Judgment
MADHUKAR SADBHA SHIVARKAR (D) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
In our considered view, the orders impugned in the writ petitions which are affirmed by the High Court, are perfectly legal and valid and therefore, the same do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, but on the other hand, the aforesaid orders of the State Government can also be traceable to executive power of Full Judgment