Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1912)ILR39Cal439
Caspersz, J.1. The plaintiff is the Maharaja of Hill Tipperah. He also owns what the plaint describes as 'a vast zamindari,' that is, Chakla Roshanabad in the British district of Tipperah. The suit giving rise to this second appeal was brought by the Maharaja to have his zamindari title declared in respect of a tank and its banks and for khas possession and mesne profits. In the alternative, plaintiff claimed to have the lands assessed with fair rent. The defence was that the tank had been niskar (rent-free) since the time of the defendant's ancestor in virtue of a sanad chiti, dated the 14th Magh 1259(26th January 1850),granted by the predecessor of the plaintiff.2. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation; and, on appeal, the District Judge has arrived at the same conclusion.3. The plaintiff appeals. This is one of many appeals involving the same question--the right to assess the niskar tanks in the chakla. We have heard the arguments in this appeal and in appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 39Ind.Cas.934
Fletcher, J.1. These are three appeals by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council.2. The three suits out of which these appeals arise were brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur under the provisions of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs at a recent Settlement had been entered in the Record of Rights as tenure-holders. Accordingly they brought these suits asking that they were raiyats with a right of occupancy in lands in question. At the trial the learned Subordinate Judge decided in their favour. Hence the present appeals by the appellant. The sole question involved in these appeals is, therefore, what is the status of the plaintiffs. In suits of this nature one has to bear in mind what are the rules laid down by Statute for determining whether the person is a tenure-holder or a raiyat.3. Section 5, Sub-section 1, of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that 'tenure-holder' means primarily a person who has acquired...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 4Ind.Cas.535
1. On the 5th April 1906, this Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were raiyats and not tenure holders and the defendant was an under-raiyat. The statutory right to continue in possession which is conferred by the Bengal Tenancy Act on occupancy raiyats cannot be availed of by the defendant. The rights and liabilities of the parties must, therefore, be governed by Sections 48 and 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. There was a written lease for nine years apparently with reference to the law as laid down in Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. By that lease, it was agreed that the tenancy of the defendant would expire at the end of nine years. The present suit was instituted after the expiry of those nine years and the only defence that the defendant could raise was that under a clause in the lease, he might apply for re-settlement and the plaintiff would be bound to grant him a re-settlement without any bonus.3. No defence could be raised on the ground that the defendant had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1907)ILR34Cal470
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. The appellant, the Maharaja of Durbhanga, commenced the action, out of which the present appeal arises, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purneah, against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Bengal and North-Western Railway Company, for an injunction, for damages on account of permanent injury to a ferry and for other incidental reliefs. The Company defendants are the owners of a Railway line which, some time before 1898, was proposed to be extended from Hajipur to Katihar; the extension passes through the zamindary of the plaintiff, and had to be carried across the river Koshi, which flows through that zamindary. A bridge had consequently to be constructed across the river, the banks and bed of which are part and parcel of the estate of the plaintiff. The Maharaja had a ferry across the river, near the place where the bridge has now been constructed, and it is alleged that this ferry, which had existed for many years past, has-been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC394; [1968]1SCR561
Bachawat. J.1. In 1954, the Assam Government took possession of the lands of the respondent several other person situated in the District of Kamrup for the construction of the Pagdalia embankment. In 1955, the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion Ordinance, 1955 (Assam Ordinance No. 2 of 1955) was passed enabling the State Government to acquire lands for works or other development measures in connection with flood control or prevention of erosion. The Ordinance was replaced by the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion Act, 1955 (Assam Act No. 6 of 1955) which was passed on April 11, 1955 with the assent of the President. In April 1956, the State Government passed on order in writing acquiring the lands taken over in 1954 for the construction of the Pagdalia embankment under s. 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1955. It seems that the reference to the Ordinance was a mistake and the acquisition was made under Act No. 6 of 1955. On A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Dipankar Datta, J.1. Challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the Corporation) holding that the plot of land which the petitioners intend to develop was a tank/water body and therefore the bar of Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 (hereafter the Fisheries Act) is attracted. It was further held by him that since the petitioners had been gradually filling up the tank/water body, they shall restore the same in its original position.2. The impugned order is undated and has been forwarded to the first petitioner by the Executive Engineer (C)/PMU of the Corporation by his letter dated 19.4.2008.3. For the purpose of proper adjudication of the issue involved in this writ petition, the genesis of the dispute may be noticed.4. The first two petitioners are joint directors of M/s. Ornate Builders Private Limited, a company within the meaning of the Indian Companies Act, the third petitioner (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori114
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. These two petitions are heard together as they involve common questions of law and fact, and are disposed of by this judgment. 2. O. J. C. 81 of 1955 was tiled by 41 petitioners on 24-2-1955, and O. J. C. 152 of 1955 was filed by 48 petitioners on 2-5-55. The petitioners in both the applications are residents of village Harinikuli, Chaumukha, Dagara, Nagudi, Saranjapur, Naighati Pakundi, Jamukunda, Manikisimulia, Jugadihand Badasaha in the district of Balasore bordering on the western flank of the river Subarnarekha at its lowest reach before it falls into the Bay of Bengal. These applications are filed under Article 228 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party, the State of Orissa, to refrain from proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings as the notification issued by the Government under Section 4, read with Section 17(4), Land Acquisition Act, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: April 12, 2013 + OMP No.155/2011 M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Arun Kumar Varma, Adv. with Ms.Mansi Wadhera & Mr.Ashish Bansal, Advs. versus M/S PROGRESSIVE-MVR(JV) ..... Respondent Through Mr.Amit George, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the award dated 25th October, 2010.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner awarded contract for execution of works of four laning from kms. 480+00 to Kms. 520+00 of Gopalganj Muzzafarpur Section of NH-28 in the state of Bihar vide letter dated 8th July, 2005.3. A formal contract agreement was signed on 24th August, 2005.4. It is stated by the petitioner that the entire work under the said contract was divided into various items forming...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2205; 1990(2)SCALE406; 1991Supp(1)SCC414; [1990]Supp1SCR91; 1990(2)LC681(SC)
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution arises against the order dated July 5, 1971 made by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Order No. 1826 of 1971 dismissing the Writ petition in limine. The material facts are that the lands of Hal Plot Nos. 2202, 2204, 2206, 2209, 2210,2212,2214,2219,2220,2225.2226,2228,2229,2232,2233,2234,2236 and 2239 of Mouza Kishorimohanpore, J.L. No. 168, P.S. Jayanagar were recorded in the final Khatian Nos. 143 and 144 of J.L. No. 168 as 'Tank Fishery' (being used for pisciculture) and by operation of Section 6(1)(e) of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1 of 1954, for short 'the Act' stand excluded from its purview. The Asstt. Settlement Officer initiated suo motu proceedings on May 14, 1968 that they have not been properly classified and prima facie require correction of classifications of those lands. Accordingly, he drew up the proceedings under Section 44(2A) of the Act, issued notice to the respondents who a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN241
D.K. Seth, J. Prelude:1. These two appeals involve identical question of law and fact. Therefore both these matters were taken up and heard simultaneously. The appeals arise out of the interim orders granted by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions filed by the respondent Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. and Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. respectively.1.1. In course of hearing of the application for interim order the respective Counsel for the parties addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal. Therefore, at the suggestions of the parties the appeal was taken up for hearing. At the initial hearing of the appeal the parties had addressed the Court on the merit of the writ petitions as well. Since the Court was invited to decide the matter even on the question involved in the writ petition, therefore, it was deemed fit that the two writ petitions should also be disposed of, and the learned Counsel for the respective parties jointly suggested that the records of the writ...
Tag this Judgment!