KAHC010479002008_1
3 Dec 2015The High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, heard a consolidated batch of writ petitions filed by various entities including National Mineral Development ...
Search Results for "Revenue Code"
3619 result(s) found
Found 3619 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal Against Dismissal of Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession, Suit Barred by Limitation.
17 Jul 2025The dispute concerned agricultural land bearing R.S.No.21, Block No.36 situated in Teredkoppa village, originally part of the Talawar family holdings....
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Telecom Company's Claim for Refund of Entry Fee After 2G Licences Quashed Due to Illegal Government Policy. Restitution Under Section 65 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 Denied as Quashing Did Not Render Contracts Void, and Set-Off Policy Upheld Under Article 14 of Constitution.
3 Mar 2022The dispute involved a telecom company seeking a refund of an Entry Fee of Rs 1454.94 crores paid for 2G licences across twenty-one service areas, aft...
- 331
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Remands Revenue's Appeal to High Court for Lack of Reasoning and Failure to Frame Substantial Questions of Law Under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court's order dismissing the appeal without assigning reasons or framing substantial questions of law was set aside as legally unsustainable.
27 Feb 2019The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had dismissed the...
- 440
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows State's Appeal in Land Acquisition Case — Acquisition Not Vitiated for Failure to Serve Notice on Unrecorded Purchaser. Civil Suit Challenging Acquisition Award Held Not Maintainable Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
10 Feb 2020The case pertains to a second appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the lower appellate court which had decreed the suit in...
- 77
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Aarey Colony Development as Forest Land — Held That Aarey Colony Is Not a Forest Under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and That the State Government Has Discretion to Use Land for Public Purposes. The court ruled that the dictionary meaning of 'forest' does not apply to Aarey Colony, and the petitioners failed to establish that it is a forest requiring prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
4 Oct 2019The petitioners, Vanashakti (a public trust) and four individuals, filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India b...
- 149
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Revision Order Allocating Government Land to Army Havaldar. The court upheld the revisional authority's decision under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, finding no error in granting the land to the respondent.
16 Dec 2019The petitioners, fourteen residents of village Gosarane, taluka Kalwan, district Nashik, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o...
- 132
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Remand Order in Tenancy Dispute Under Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958. Court Holds That the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's Remand for Fresh Enquiry Under Section 9 Was Justified as the Sub-Divisional Officer Had Not Properly Considered the Evidence.
13 Apr 2005The petitioners, legal heirs of the original watandar, challenged an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal remanding the case to the Sub-Divisiona...
- 50
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Grampanchayat's Challenge to Land Acquisition Surrender Order Under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Surplus Land Not Required for Rehabilitation Must Be Returned to Original Owner. The Court held that the Collector and Divisional Commissioner validly directed surrender of surplus land acquired for rehabilitation of project affected persons, as the public purpose ceased for the surplus land, and the Grampanchayat could not retain it.
10 Mar 2006The petitioner, Grampanchayat Burambali, challenged orders dated 11th August 2003 and 23rd October 2003 passed by the Collector, Kolhapur, and the Div...
- 129
