Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: river conservancy act 1884 section 7 · Page 1 of about 18 results (0.018 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.

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, … case, as contended for by Mr. Sambasivarao, depends upon the survey under Section 3 and the notification under Section 7 of the Act. Whether the river was so surveyed and notified or not is a question of fact

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 … be taken in auctioning the leasehold rights of sand mining.13. Under Rule 7, the District Committee is made responsible to deal with all the matters … 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

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 … The learned Cousel placed reliance on the observations in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the judgment in Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. : … 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

18-section briefs on any result in this list

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 … memo, of cross-objections. In O. S. No. 41 of 1943 he gave the plff. a decree for Rs. 750 as damages & proportionate costs of Rs. 120-9-0 & dismissed the rest of the claim with proportionate costs

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

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 … 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 … as portions of the areas of the villages themselves and that the 700 odd acres in dispute raised from the river-bed formed part of the

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 … 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 … provided by this Act made by the Governor-in-Council, land within the limits of a river-bed, as defined in Section 7 which has not been cultivated for two years previous to the date on which this Act is applied

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 18 1931

Arizona Vs. California

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-18-1931

Subject : Land Acquisition

1931 283 U.S. 423 Syllabus 1. The United States has power to construct a dam across a navigable river for the purpose of improving navigation, and need not first obtain approval of its plans by the state … specified purpose of regulating the flow and preventing floods in this interstate river; or as a means of conserving and apportioning its waters among the states equitably entitled thereto, or for the purpose of performing international obligations. … Arizona, (1930), vol. i, pp. 216-36. By the Act of July 5, 1884, c. 229, 23 Stat. 133, 144, Congress appropriated $25,000 for the improvement … it. P. 283 U. S. 454 . 5. The Boulder Canyon Project Act, December 21, 1928, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior at the expense … her legal right to appropriate water. Id. (3) Section 18 of the Act declares that nothing in … United States. Act of August 19, 1921, c. 72, 42 Stat. 171. On November 24, 1922, these

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 … 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 … important, it is set out here, [ Footnote 4 ] 44 Stat. 752: "SECTION 1. That, for the purpose of protecting and conserving the fisheries

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 10 1972

Srimanthu Rajah Yarlagadda Sivarama Prasad Bhadur Zamindar Vs. State o ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-10-1972

Subject : Property

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114; Constitution of India - Article 226; Easements Act, 1882 - Sections 15

Reported in : AIR1973AP281

of Newill in 1854, or the fact that the Government carried on conservation of rivers according to the river conservancy, 1884 and handed over the lanka lands back to the petitioner it would not make out his case … been given by the tribunal against the petitioner.2. The estate of Devarakota was notified under the Estates Abolition Act and taken over by the State Government on 7-9-1949. The petitioner, who is a landholder, applied for the … petitioner, who is a landholder, applied for the grant of patta under Section 12(a) of the act in respect of several items of lanka lands

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 19 1975

Antoine Vs. Washington

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-19-1975

Subject : Land Acquisition

] The original reservation was over 3 million acres "bounded on the east and south by the Columbia River, on the west by the Okanagan River, and on the north by the British possessions." Exec.Order of July … of commercial fishing [and hunting], and the like may be regulated by the State in the interest of conservation, provided the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the Indians." The "appropriate standards" requirement means … State in 1889, 26 Stat. 1552, and, the next year, by the Act of Aug.19, 1890, 26 Stat. 355, Congress created the Commission that negotiated … "Any person who hunts . . . deer in violation of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. . . ." Section 77.16.030 provides … 420 U.S. 194 (1975) Antoine v. Washington No. 73-717 Argued December 16, 1974 Decided February 19, 1975

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