Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... . 27.2 sections 2(e) and 2(f) are similar to sections 2(d) and 2(e) as defined under andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (act 12 of 1982) ..... . said provisions of andhra pradesh act, 1982 had come up for consideration before hon'ble apex court in the matter of konda lakshmana bapuji vs government of andhra pradesh & others reported in (2002)3 scc258and same has been interpreted as:450. /p>"30 ..... public interest for declaring the klgp act-2011 contending that it is not applicable to inam land and residential sites within the village boundary, gramthana and to consider the representation dated 09.11.2017 (annexures-b & c) submitted to respondents-1 and 2 for amending the notification no.rd3-min58dated 13.01.1959 contending interalia that petitioners and similarly placed persons are in possession of certain extent of lands in raghavanapalya village, j.p.nagar 9th phase, gottigere post, uttarahalli hobli by way of inheritance and have been living in the ..... . a rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof resting upon the prosecution, nor deprive the defendant of the benefit of the presumption of innocence.95 ..... . sanjeeva k shetty s/o late koraga shetty harisagar madra gutthu shimanthoor village mangalore taluk - 574 215 ..... .(2014) 10 scc1 madras bar association vs ..... . air1962sc316 collector of customs, madras vs .....
Tag this Judgment!