Karnataka Court November 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
R. Rudrappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2683; 2000(1)KarLJ523
ORDER1. Heard.2. All these petitions are taken up together for disposal since the principal prayer therein is for:'Declaration that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable for making application for resumption of the land under Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978'.3. Certain undisputed facts in these petitions are that the lands in question were Government lands that were granted to respective grantees belonging either to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, and that these lands were granted to them under darkhast imposing a condition not to alienate them for a specified period. It is an admitted fact that these lands were alienated by the grantees or their Legal Representatives ('L.Rs' for short) in violation of the said condition. Therefore, respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner ('A.C.' in short) on applications made either by the grantees or the L.Rs passed the impugned orders under Section 5 of the Karnataka Sc...
Channabasappa Gurappa Belagavi and Others Vs. Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ216
ORDER1. The petitioners, in this petition, are the landlords and were the petitioners before the Trial Court. The respondents, in this petition, are the tenants and were the respondents before the Trial Court. The parties to this petition, in the course of this order, will be referred to as 'the landlords' and 'the tenants'.2. Facts that may have bearing for the disposal of this petition, may briefly be stated as hereunder:(a) The petition schedule premises consist of land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in R.S. No. 87 and land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in R.S. No. 93, bearing C.T.S. Nos. 146 to 153, situated in Ward No. III, Neeligin Road, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as 'the petition schedule premises'). By means of a registered lease deed dated 1st of March,1905, one Gurappa Bin Channabasappa Belagavi, minor represented by his guardian and mothers one Smt. Dundawa, Dodda Irapawa and Sanna Irapawa through their Power of Attorney one Shivamurteppa, leased out the petition schedule premi...
G. Mallikarjunsiddeshwarappa and anr. Vs. Shamanur Shivashankarappa an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant241; ILR1999KAR908
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. A very unusual situation has arisen in this litigation in so far as the first respondent who is the elected candidate, through his learned Counsel, has submitted an application to the Court for dismissal of these petitions on the ground of procedural non-compliance. It shall briefly enumerate in the course of this order what the various heads of charge are but I need to prefix the judgment with the observation that Election Law unlike in almost all other fields of litigation presents situation wherein the rule of strict compliance is not only observed but scrupulously insisted upon by the Courts. There are many reasons for this, the main on being that the outcome of these petitions must necessarily be time bound because where an election has been challenged, if the challenge is a valid one the wrongly elected candidate should be dislodged from office at the earliest point of time whereas on the other hand, if the challenge is unfounded then the cloud that hangs...
Harsha Shivaram Vs. National Law School of India (Deemed University), ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: ILR1996KAR902
ORDER1. The respondent-University has been constituted under the Act called 'National Law School of India University Act, 1986'. The petitioner being desirous of being admitted to the five year LL.B. Course run bythe University had sat at the entrance test on 3-5-1998, but his ranking in the merit list being 499, he could not secure admission. Subsequently, he filed the present writ petition claiming that he is a disabled person with deficient eye sight and therefore he is entitled to a seat in that capacity in view of the provisions contained in Section 39 of the 'Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, ('the Act', for short).2. Section 39 of the Act reads as under:'39. All educational institutions to reserve seats for persons with disabilities.--All Government Educational Institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent seats for persons with di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›