State of Mysore Vs. Kannan and ors.

.....beneficiary in the miscellaneous proceedings before the reference court has not caused any prejudice to the university (beneficiary) as the reference court has framed the contentious point regarding the period of limitation for its consideration. on facts, held, the right of the beneficiary is availed before the reference court by urging the plea regarding limitation, the parties adduced evidence on this aspect of the case and the finding recorded by the reference court is accepted. -- sections 23 & 54: acquisition of lands determination of compensation appeal by the beneficiary- cross objection by the land owners - held, having regard to the fundamental right guaranteed under articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of india, right of occupation carried on with agricultural operation for themselves are the rights to have a meaningful livelihood. the university, which is imparting education to thousands of students should be the protector of human rights of the citizens, instead it has taken untenable stand contending that the market price fixed causes hardship to it, which attitude of it shocks the conscience of this court. the owners have been waiting to receive just and fair compensation since 1971, like shabari waiting for sri ramas feet to touch to liberate her from the curse. even after a lapse of 37 years after acquisition of the lands, the university is reluctant to pay the fair and reasonable market value to the owners determined by the court urging all kinds of untenable and frivolous grounds in this appeal which is most unfortunate on the part of the beneficiary university. appeal dismissed with costs of rs.25,000/-. - the power to be exercised under this section being an exceptional one and strong power, it has to be used with great caution. , for well over two months, no other material was placed to detain any one of the respondents either under section 55 or 109 of the criminal p. 5. in the result these petitions fail, and they are dismissed......common order.3. on various dates in the year 1969 one or the other police officers apprehended respondents at mid-night as they were found in suspicious circumstances and when the police officers questioned them, they were not able to give satisfactory explanation for their presence at that time in those places. they were taken into custody under section 55 of the criminal p. c. and a case was registered against each of the respondents both under sections 55. and 109 of the criminal p. c. pending investigation, respondents were produced before the sub-divisional magistrate. mysore, who passed the impugned orders releasing the respondents.4. section 55 of the criminal p. c. deals with matters which are not offences. under this section, an officer in charge of the police station may arrest -(i) any person preparing to commit a cognizable offence under certain circumstances;(ii) any person who has no ostensible means of subsistence; and(iii) habitual offenders. this section also gives power to arrest any person who cannot give satisfactory account of himself. the power to be exercised under this section being an exceptional one and strong power, it has to be used with great caution. from the orders passed by the sub-divisional magistrate. mysore, it is clear that although the cases were filed against these respondents under sections 55 and 109 of the cri. p. c., for well over two months, no other material was placed to detain any one of the respondents either under section 55 or 109 of the criminal p. c. keeping the accused (respondents) in such a situation would certainly amount to taking away the liberty of the individual. mere mentioning the sections under which they are to be proceeded with is not sufficient to detain them in custody, unless the prosecution satisfies the court that detention is necessary for a sufficient cause. except filing the case against the respondents, the prosecution in this case seems to have taken no action and in these.....