The Land Ports Authority Of India Act 2010no 31 Of 2010 31st August 2010 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: the land ports authority of india act 2010no 31 of 2010 31st august 2010 Page 1 of about 617 results (5.566 seconds)Smt. Chankali Vs. Doodh Nath Mani and Others
Court : Allahabad
he does not require declaration of his title to the land the position would be different where a person not being is actually recorded but with no order of the competent authority to support such entry 26 in the instant case undisputedly of a competent authority and amaldaramad is only a ministerial act consequent to such an order the order of mutation regardless names of the plaintiffs be recorded in the revenue records 31 in the present case the order of the competent authority and another v 12th additional district judge ghaziabad and others 2010 7 adj 384 a single judge of this court for order and decree of the lower appellate court dated 18th august 2010 passed by district judge deoria in civil appeal no
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShri b.s. Yeddyurappa Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court : Karnataka
4 11 2011 aggrieved by the order of withdrawal the land owners approached this court in w p nos 42792 99 are filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india319 06 2015 authority read with section482of cr p c praying to declare that 1 there shall be a comptroller and auditor general of india who shall be appointed by the president by warrant under remedy in the form of section 7 of karnataka lokayuktha act 1996 is narrated 32 24 as it emanates from the 41229 2015 crime no 40 2015 pertaining to 6 acres 31 guntas of land in sy no 24 of kothanur village issues highlighted in the c a g report no 6 2010 11 and also c a g report no 3 2012
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTR.Chandramohan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court : Kerala
permitted that the buyers could take possession of the project land and develop it by themselves and recover compensation from the admission estoppel or mere acquiescence we extract below the following portion from the said judgment 4 in the case of farid to the decision of the apex court in delhi development authority s case supra which also will show that on the mugneeram bangur co air1954sc44 laid down that according to the indian law which is embodied in s 54 of the transfer by which they have submitted to the provisions of the act which is the requirement of the act itself thus the be persons interested for the purpose of sections 30 and 31 of the act 30 it is submitted that the title compensation for 17 ares as per sale deed no 2626 2010 and the fourth respondent claimed compensation for 22 ares based
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRanbir Sharma Vs. Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit
Court : Delhi
notification of 13th december 2000 under section 4 of the land acquisition act 1894 pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land i and part ii dividing the acquired lands in two portions and there being farm houses in the vicinity of the reddy and ors v land acquisition officer hyderabad urban development authority hyderabad and ors 1995 2 scc 305 are as under referred to above 12 in the written synopsis appellant impulse india private limited of la app no 295 2009 has assailed 13th december 2000 under section 4 of the land acquisition act 1894 pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one for building plots even if formed in the acquired land 31 in view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of app 261 2010 la app 270 2010 la app 292 2010 la app 293 2010 la app 305 2010 la app
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. V.
Court : Punjab and Haryana
an agreement was executed on 8 5 2009 and even land for the project was handed over on 31 8 2009 pending before the punjab infrastructure regulatory authority for short the authority as the bank guarantee was valid upto 30 4 2011 the aligarh municipal board and others v ekka tonga mazdoor union and others air 197 sc 170 and bharat steel tubes contained in section 2 b of the contempt of courts act 1971 it was submitted that the non compliance has to and even land for the project was handed over on 31 8 2009 the company furnished performance bank guarantee of 10 came up for hearing before this court on 16 12 2010 the same was disposed of on the statement made by to the order passed by the learned court below dated august 30 2010 whereby the application filed by the appellant under
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPresent:- Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind Advocate Vs. Jaimal Singh and Anothe ...
Court : Punjab and Haryana
it was for the defendants to prove that the suit land was owned by them on the date of execution of partition the plaintiff may seek her remedy before the revenue authorities by applying for partition in the suit which was filed barred opd7 whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present suit opd kadian savita dated 23 1 1997 ex p1 photocopy of will dated 31 10 1996 photocopy of death certificate of karnail singh dated suit which was filed in the court on 9 4 2010 sale deed executed by defendant no 2 in favour of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTIndia Affordable Housing Solutions (Iahs) & Anr vs.konark Infra Devel ...
Court : Delhi
the plaintiff as an advance payment for purchase of the land was dishonoured and the defendants got registered cc no 46under application for grant of license was rejected by the concerned authority and the project could not be proceeded further but had fir no 192 2011 was also registered under sectionsof the indian penal code at police station khekri dhola gurugram haryana k plaint the complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act 1881 ni act and various police complaints were filed wherein 01 2016 and last installment of 1 00 crore on 31 03 2016 l further in its order dated 23 03 22 of plaint as under proposed tentative date end august 2010 end october 2010 end february 2011 end march 2011 april order dated 29th january 2015 at request adjourned to 26th august 2015 3 the defendants no 1 to 3 moved this
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPanchanan Bit Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors
Court : Jharkhand
right title and interest over the suit property i e land measuring 17 kathas 11 dhurs being plot no 22 pertaining the possession of any of the parties except under the authority of law aparesh kumar singh j shamim holding that the plaintiffs had got no valid cause of action in the suit and the suit is not maintainable plaintiff respondent no 3 earlier passed an order bearing memo no 311 dated 21 st may 2015 on the application of the district judge i pakur dismissed the title appeal no 03 2010 preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the sub ors vs the state of jharkhand ors annexure 3 dated 31st march 2015 in respect of same piece of land in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPresent: Mr. Vineet Sehgal Advocate for Vs. State of Haryana and Anoth ...
Court : Punjab and Haryana
6 whether the said property is liable to change of land use when admittedly the said property is now within extended the punjab scheduled road and controlled areas restriction of unregulated development haryana amendment ordinance 2009 counsel further makes a reference to of unregulated development act 1963 hereinafter referred to as the act it is further case of the appellant that the suit of compounding fees singh rattan pal 2014 02 11 12 31 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the construction is compoundable as per policy dated 25 05 2010 5 whether due process of law was followed while dealing
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S Abimani Publications Ltd Vs. State of Karnataka
Court : Karnataka
tracks illegally the hon ble single judge held that the land covered by the said survey number was not a forest government wanted to prohibit the railway authorities from using a portion of the said survey number for non forest purpose it matter we set aside the order of the 22 revisional authority which has in its turn affirmed the order of the such order was proved abortive ultimately the supreme court of india dismissed the special leave petition under article 136 of the to the provisions of section 35 of the mysore forest act 1900 act for short section 35 of the said act land sometime in 1994 the state 4 government transferred 1 31 861 61 hectares of land being described as c and the division bench by judgment and order dated january 7 2010 in writ appeal no 3805 of 2009 20 we are has expired 8 the petitioner no 1 before us on august 31 2010 applied for fresh quarrying lease in respect of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT