Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: river conservancy act 1884 section 16 · Page 1 of about 17 results (0.036 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Oct 31 1950

The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of East Godavari at K ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-31-1950

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Madras River Conservancy Act, 1884 - Sections 16 and 25; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 80 - Order 1, Rule 10; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 117

Reported in : AIR1952Mad510; (1951)IMLJ454

given two months time to pay the costs. Civil - compensation - Sections 16 and 25 of Madras River Conservancy Act, 1884, Section 117 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 80 and Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 19 1928

The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-19-1928

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : 118Ind.Cas.273

mesne profits. The Government was in possession of the Kistna River under the provisions of Act VI of 1884. Section 11 of the Act runs as follows:After such surveys shall have been completed and approved and the notification … 12 cultivation may be prohibited if it tends to obstruct or divert the course of the river. By Section 16 refusal of permission to cultivate or requisition to remove construction, etc., give a right of compensation to the … having asked for permission and no permission having been refused is not entitled to compensation under the Rivers Conservancy Act and it cannot be said that Government has asserted a hostile title against him or that the decision

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 02 2008

Alluri Narayana Murthy Raju Vs. Dist. Collector and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-02-2008

Subject : Contract

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 32 and 56; Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884; Interest Act, 1978 - Sections 3 and 3(1); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 144; Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Auction of Sand in the Water Courses Vesting in Gram Panchayat) Rules, 2000 - Rules 5, 7, 8, 11 to 18, 19 and 26

Reported in : AIR2008AP264; 2008(6)ALD103

respondent No. 2 on 23.12.2000 calling for tenders for auctioning the right to quarry the sand in Gostani river in Maddi Gram Panchayat, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the petitioner made his application by paying necessary E.M.D. Respondent … of the auction or is lifting the sand against the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884.18. Sections 32 and 56 of the Act, which are very material for the present purpose, read as … Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam, respondent No. 5 initiated proceedings dated 24.12.2001 under Section 144, Cr.P.C. Despite the said measures, the villagers did not permit the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Aug 27 1919

The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Sri Rajah Bommadevara ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-27-1919

Subject : Civil

Reported in : 58Ind.Cas.689

year, the villages have been held on ordinary ryotwary, tenure.19. In 1894 operations were begun under the Rivers Conservancy Act (Mad. Act VI of 1884) with the object of confining the course of the river Kistna within defined … 18 C.W.N. 1217 : 20 C.L.J. 385 : 27 M.L.J. 419 : 16 M.L.T. 319 : 1 L.W. 733 : (1914) M.W.N. 654 : 16 … land really belonged to B is removed. (The Limitation Act relieves against ignorance only in case s under sections 5, 14 and 18). It has been held that even ignorance of his dispossession will not save the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 12 1962

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Koneru Suryanarayana and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-12-1962

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 41, Rule 1; Madras Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884 - Sections 3, 7, 11, 12 and 13

Reported in : AIR1963AP94

claiming the accretions as theirs, though in that case the nanal grass was planted by the Government for river conservancy. I do not know whether this case is strictly in point, for the reason that it was found … of the Government, and, is therefore, in contravention of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Madras Rivers Conservancy Act (Act VI of 1884). Accordingly it is contended that the planting of nanal grass constitutes an illegal operation, … the reformation in situ. These formations of accretions are dealt with in Section 4 of the Bengal Regulation XI of 1825. We are in this … was found that the patta land of the plaintiffs consisted only of 166-34 acres and that that survey had become final and conclusive. It is

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 24 2006

State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. P. Krishnamurthy and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-24-2006

Subject : EnvironmentCivil

Acts : Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 4A, 4A(1), 4A(2), 4A(3), 15, 17, 17A and 24A; Madras River Conservancy Act, 1884; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1986; Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - Rules 1(3), 2(6), 8, 8A, 8C, 8(8), 8(11), 15, 36(1), 36(5) and 38A; Constitution of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC1622; JT2006(4)SC167; (2006)3MLJ313(SC); 2006(3)SCALE460; (2006)4SCC517

15 provides for absolute prohibition or regulation of quarrying or removal of sand from riverbeds to which Madras River Conservancy Act, 1884 has been extended and for regulating the quarrying or removal of sand from beds of river in charge … minor minerals by making appropriate rules, in view of the power delegated to it by the Parliament under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short the 'Act'). The power to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 19 1928

Secy. of State Vs. (Bommadevara) Satyanarayana Varaprasada Rao Bahadur ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-19-1928

Subject : Property

Reported in : AIR1929Mad520

mesne profits. The Government was in possession of the Kistna river under the provisions of Act 6 of 1884. Section 11 of the Act runs as follows:After such surveys shall have been completed and approved and the notification … 12 cultivation may be prohibited if it tends to obstruct or divert the course of the river. By Section 16 refusal of permission to cultivate or requisition to remove construction etc. give a right of compensation to the … having asked for permission and no permission having been refu6ed is not entitled to compensation under the Rivers Conservancy Act and it cannot be said that Government has asserted a hostile title against him or that the decision

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 12 1904

Annakumaru Pillai Vs. Muthupayal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-12-1904

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1904)14MLJ248

and Pearl-Fisheries by Mr. H.S. Thomas (1884) p. 16, Section 45. Such beds exist all along the … in the bed from which the prisoner had removed them and which was situated in a tidal navigable river.14. Apart from any statute, in State v. Taylor 72 Am. Deo. 347 referred to above, dishonest removal of … have always been taken to be the exclusive property of the sovereign, by whom, consequently, they have been conserved; and the fishery operations connected therewith have always been carried on under state control and have formed a … for determination in the present case are.1. (a). Whether live chanks not actually seized but remaining free in their natural habitat in the bed of … average revenue during the 25 years from 1876-77 to 1902-03 (not reckoning 1884-85 in which for some reason not apparent there was no fishery) derived … property? (c). Is 'possession' within the meaning of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code predicablc in

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 31 1949

Hynes Vs. Grimes Packing Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-31-1949

Subject : Land Acquisition

337 U. S. 94 spoken of in Order No. 128, establishing the reservation is situated on the Karluk River, long recognized as one of the most important salmon spawning streams of Alaska. The natives live at its … Indians or Eskimos by section 8 of the Act of May 17, 1884 (23 Stat. 26), or by section 14 or section 15 of the … charter and a constitution by the Native Village of Karluk under §§ 16 and 17 of the Wheeler-Howard Act cannot expand the power of the … P. 337 U. S. 118 . (b) The White Act, the purpose of which was to protect and conserve the fisheries of Alaska on a nonmonopolistic basis, Page 337 U. S. 88 authorizes the establishment of preserves

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 19 2012

Mohd. MohsinuddIn Vs. the Government of A.P., Rep. by Its Prin

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-19-2012

Subject : Land Acquisition

the safety of the river, its course and river bed, and exercises power under the A.P. (Andhra Area) River Conservancy Act, 1884; he has jurisdiction over both the left and right banks of the Krishna river, and at the KC … ramps all of them located in Gunutr District for transportation of the sand quarried at reach No.8, Amaravati.24. Section 9-I(2) requires the successful tenderer/bidder to execute a lease deed with the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology … 7) 2001(4) SCC 53.8) 2003(1) SCC 69.9) AIR 199.SC 174.10) AIR 196.SC 167.11) (1984 (2) SCC 50.12) (2001)8 SCC 6.13) (2003)5 SCC 13.14) (2003)2 SCC

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial