Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: public premises eviction of unauthorised occupants act 1971 section 17 delegation of powers Court: kerala Page 1 of about 2 results (0.058 seconds)

Jayalakshmi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2006(1)KLT523

..... , thiruvananthapuram dated 21-1-2000 calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate the premises in question on or before 10-3-2000 under the provisions of the public premises eviction of unauthorised occupants act, 1971 - central act 40/1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'public premises act' for short.)2. the admitted facts leading to the order passed by ..... against her. on 19-7-1999 the revision petitioner sent a reply to the estate officer contending inter alia that she was not liable to be evicted under the public premises act. on 21-11-1999, she filed a further objection before the estate officer raising inter alia a contention that the estate officer has no ..... see accountant & secretarial services pvt. ltd and anr. v. union of india and ors. : air1988sc1708 ). if so, both statutes providing for eviction operate under the same field and the public premises act being an act passed by the parliament has to prevail over the rent control act in view of article 254(1) of the constitution of .....

M. Far Hotels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2005(2)KLT988

..... of its executive power under article 162 of the constitution of india. they have no case that the state has taken resort to the provisions of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 or through any other law. it is trite law that state government cannot while taking recourse to the executive power of ..... this case to hold that the state government has acted arbitrarily and without authority of law. the executive action taken by the state to repossess the palace premises from the petitioners and the procedure followed to achieve this objective are destructive of the basic principle of rule of law government, in exercise of the executive ..... for the writ petitioners, sri. l.nargeswara rao submitted that the action of the state government and others in taking forcible possession of the kovalam hotel premises is illegal, mala fide and due to extraneous reasons. counsel submitted that by a high handed action state of kerala and its officials took forcible possession of .....

Metro Studio Vs. Canara Bank

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2003(2)KLT629

..... officer, canara bank, thiruvananthapuram are the revision petitioners. this civil revision petition is filed against an order passed by the estate officer under section 5(1) of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971('act' for short) and confirmed by the district judge, thiruvananthapuram in c.m.a. 238 of 2000. 2. the first revision ..... a ground to reject the claim put forward by the bank in this case. it is well settled position of law that the occupant of a public premise can be evicted resorting to the procedure prescribed under the act. so, i shall proceed to consider how far the notice issued by the bank is correct. 7. ..... not raised a contention that there is no termination of the tenancy and still they are holding the property as tenants. as already stated, for evicting a person from a public premises the estate officer should enter into a finding that his occupation is unauthorised. since the revision petitioners came into occupation of the building as tenants .....

Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2000Ker131

..... as also other forest offences were registered and systematic attempt was made to obstruct them from free movement. even steps for throwing themout under the u.p. public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972 were taken. the supreme court further observed as follows:'indisputably, forests are a much wanted national asset. on account of ..... the concerned authority.'29. in banwasl seva ashram's case, air 1987 sc 374 the supreme court was dealing with a case under the u.p. public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972. state government declared part of the jungle lands in the two tehslls as reserved forests as provided under section) of the ..... wanton malversation. the administrators are not at fault and the person who pursues such process of eviction is none other than a public spirited enthusiast. his attempt to dislodge the fair opportunity to the victims of the threatened eviction is only to be disdained. however, in the nature of the views that we have .....

Geetha Ramanujan Vs. Estate Manager, Cochin Port Trust, Cochin and Oth ...

Court : Kerala

..... quote the operative portion of the order which reads as under: now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971, i hereby order the said m/s.new india maritime agencies, g.v. iyyar road, p.b. no. 513, w/island, cochin ..... 08.04.2015 by which following direction was issued: now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971, i hereby order the said m/s.leegee corporation, g.v.iyer road, w/island, cochin 682 003 and all persons who ..... quash exhibit p8 order issued by the chairman cochin port trust dated 01.01.2015 and ext.p9 order dated 10.02.2015 issued by the estate officer issued under public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to provide the .....

Geetha Ramanujan Vs. Estate Manager, Cochin Port Trust

Court : Kerala

..... , (i) the character and status in which the petitioners occupy the premises of the respondent port trust; to which the petitioners were originally inducted as lessees and (ii) the sustainability of the eviction notices issued against the petitioners under the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupation) act, 1971 (for brevity, "the act of ..... 1971"). they also raise an alternative question of rehabilitation and compensation, if the eviction is sustained. w.p(c) no. 12798/2015 confines ..... buildings are situated to malabar cements limited ( mcl).5. on behalf of the petitioners, it is further urged that the petitioners cannot be evicted from the premises, since there is no provision to resume the land, for the benefit of a 3rd party, even according to the policy guidelines. the .....

Navas Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

..... a final decision was taken, after affording an opportunity of hearing.5. subsequently, a notice was issued to the petitioners under section 4(2) of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971. this was ought to be challenged by the petitioners by filing w.p.(c) no.12290/2014, joining hands with some ..... not proceed on the notice any further. during the pendency of klc proceedings, on the basis of a judgment of this hon'ble court, notice under public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) act, another notice was issued. subsequently as per ext.p4, sufficient notices were issued to the encroachers including the petitioners herein on 19 ..... other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) to declare that the 2nd respondent has no right or authority to initiate steps under the provisions of the public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) act, 1971 iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction compelling and .....

State of Kerala, Rep. by the Chief Secre Vs. Hotel Leelaventure Ltd. a ...

Court : Kerala

..... of 2011 -:25. :- executive power under article 162 of the constitution of india. they have no case that the state has taken resort to the provisions of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 or through any other law. it is trite law that state government cannot while taking recourse to the executive power of the state under ..... appurtenant properties to the first petitioner through a process known to law as part of a policy of disinvestment. under our jurisprudence, even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in a manner authorised by law, which is essence of rule of law." 20. the division bench further held that petitioners were not in illegal possession and ..... .1796 of 2004. the division bench passed an order dated 01.10.2004 in the writ appeal restraining the government from taking possession of the remaining buildings and premises. in the writ appeal counter affidavits by the state, union of india and itdc were filed. both w.p(c).no.28270 of 2004 and w.a. .....

K.R.Venugopalan Nair Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

..... others [(2006) 6 scc25 had an occasion to consider the concept of personal bias of an officer in a statutory authority. in the above case under the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 the estate officer was appointed who was an officer of a bank, it was contended that appointment is vitiated on account of ..... than four months before the commencement of the financial year. regulation 3 is made for erc filing and does not relate to tariff application. thus the very premises of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners regarding tariff application is unfounded. tariff application is regulated by regulation 4 where there is no such requirement ..... a judge in his own cause". the state bank of india which owned a building, initiated proceedings for termination of tenancy and initiated proceedings under 1971 act for eviction. the w.p(c) no.19551 of 2012 and connected cases -:47. :- ministry of finance has appointed an officer belonging to the bank itself. the .....

Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.S. John and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1997]88CompCas104(Ker)

..... [1933] 3 comp cas 207, two learned judges of the supreme court held that under the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1958, the 'estate officer' who could recover the arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, could not recover the rent in arrears if it was time barred. their lordships observed that section ..... 7 of the public premises act only provided a special procedure for realisation of rent in arrears and did not constitute a source ..... acting as a court, as contended by the respondents.24. we also consider that an act like the revenue recovery act is also enacted in public interest. the public interest is that monies borrowed from the government and the institutions should be returned by the borrowers so that they can be made available to others .....