Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3859; JT2005(8)SC163; (2005)7SCC330
G.P. Mathur, J.Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10506 of 20051. This Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2005 of High Court of Chhattisgarh by which Writ Petition No. 1506 of 2005 filed by the petitioner, Rai University, was dismissed.2. The provisions of The Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short 'the Act') were challenged by Prof. Yashpal by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 11.2.2005 and the judgment delivered is reported in : AIR2005SC2026 (Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.). Paragraphs 45 and 46 of the reports, which have a bearing on the controversy in hand, are reproduced hereinbelow :'45. As a consequence of the discussion made and the findings recorded that the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act are ultra vires and the Gazette Notifications notifying the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3415; 2005CriLJ4123; JT2005(8)SC292; (2005)12SCC474
H.K. Sema, J.1. The appellant alongwith 7 accused were put to trial under Sections 302 IPC and 201 read with 34 IPC. Six accused were acquitted by the trial court. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 IPC and 201 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for life under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201/34 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default further R.I. for six months'. The other accused was also convicted under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and was sentenced to four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further three months' R.I. It appears that he has already undergone the sentence and conviction recorded against him.2. This appeal is filed by the accused Anantalal Ghosh who was convicted under Section 302/201/34 IPC by special leave.Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. Both the trial court and the High Court recorded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3708; 2005(4)CTC762; JT2005(8)SC203; (2005)12SCC1
S.B. Sinha, J. 1.Leave granted in the special leave petitions.INTRODUCTION :2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 5.10.2001 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in R.F.A. No. 85 and 86 of 1987 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') whereby and whereunder the amount of compensation in respect of acquisition of land in village Masoodpur with china clay and without china clay was fixed @ Rs. 56/- per sq. yard and Rs. 30/- per sq. yard respectively in relation to the notification dated 24.10.1961 and Rs. 98/- per sq. yard and Rs. 72/- per sq. yard with China Clay and without China Clay respectively in relation to the notification dated 23.01.1965.3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Two notifications dated 24.10.1961 and 23.01.1965 were issued for acquisition of the lands measuring 1105.04 bighas and 3895.07 bigha respectively situated in village Masoodpur for the public purpose of planned de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC639; JT2005(8)SC495
ORDER1. This is an appeal from jail challenging the conviction and sentence. The appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Kollam in Kerala, for having caused the death of one Sabitha Beevi and her three children Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas. The learned Sessions Judge imposed the capital punishment and the death sentence was confirmed, however, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 392 IPC was set aside, and in its place the appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 380 IPC by the High Court and his sentence was reduced to three years. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and also learned senior counsel for the State.2. The prosecution case reads as follows :The deceased Sabitha Beevi, with her three children, Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas, was staying at Jiyas Manzil near Ashamed Mukku at Kollam. Her husband Hashim died about two years prior to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3401; 2005(4)AWC3085(SC); 2005(4)CTC606; 2006(1)CTLJ19(SC); JT2005(8)SC171; (2005)12SCC77; 2005(2)LC1366(SC)
S.B. Sinha. J1. Constitutionality of Section 22-A of the Registration Act (The Act) as amended by the State of Rajasthan as also the notifications issued by it in terms thereof are in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 28.11.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3554 of 1999.FACTS:2. The Respondent herein is a resident of town of Bikaner. He was a Khatedar tenant of agricultural lands situated at Chak No. 13 KYD, Square No. 110/24, Killa No. 1 to 25 Bighas, Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner. He appointed one Sukhdeo Singh as his attorney authorizing him to look after his lands, cultivate the same and to do all other acts, deeds and things including mortgage or sell the same, get the requisite deeds and documents registered, by a deed of Power Of Attorney dated 16.7.1999. The said deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar. Bikaner on 30.7.1999 for the purpose of regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3467; 2005(6)ALD63(SC); 2005(4)AWC3152(SC); 2005(4)CTC645; 123(2005)DLT252(SC); JT2005(8)SC253; (2005)4MLJ147(SC); (2005)12SCC59
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.2. These appeals involving similar questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The Union of India issued four notifications on or about 13.2.1981, 20.2.1981, 13.3.1981 and 31.12.1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (The Act) for acquisition of various blocks of land situated in village Rithala for construction of supplementary drain, sewage treatment plant, remodeling the Nagloi Drain and planned development of Delhi. In relation to the aforementioned acquisitions, four awards were passed being 4/85-86, 20/82-83, 1/83-84 and 16/85-86. The Land Acquisition Officer in its awards in regard to acquisitions in terms of notifications dated 13.2.1981 and 20.2.1981 sub-divided the acquired lands in two blocks and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3800/- per bigha/ Rs. 3.77 per sq. yard for block A and Rs. 2600/- per bigha/ Rs. 2.57 per sq. yard f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3669; 2005CriLJ4119; [2005(4)JCR139(SC)]; 2005(4)MhLj1193; 2005MPLJ461(SC); (2005)7SCC387:2009AIRSCW844:2009(2)LHSC724
B.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant herein was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against his conviction and sentence which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 29-DB of 2000. The said appeal was admitted for hearing on November 3, 2001. The appellant's application for grant of regular bail was dismissed by order dated September 8, 2004. One of the co-accused namely, Satwant Singh was granted bail by the High Court by order dated September 17, 2004 since he had suffered imprisonment for three years after his conviction and, therefore, was covered by the ratio of the judgment in Dharampal v. State of Haryana : .The case of the appellant is that his case is also covered by the said judgment and, therefore, he should also be released on bail. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)7SCC563
B.P. Singh, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by some of the land holders who are affected by the Consolidation Scheme framed in regard to Shamlat Deh lands of the concerned villages. The said scheme was challenged by some other proprietors and co-sharers in Civil Writ Petition No. 18310 of 1998 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said writ petition having been dismissed, Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000 was preferred before this Court by Special Leave. Despite the order of status-quo granted by this Court pending the appeal, the petitioners alleged that they were being displaced since they were not parties in the writ petition filed before the High Court.2. They, therefore, filed the instant writ petition which has been heard along with Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000.3. We have delivered our judgment today dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000.4. We find no merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioners and the same is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(6)ALT17(SC); 2005(4)AWC3453(SC); 2006(1)BomCR220; (2006)1GLR190; [2005(4)JCR253(SC)]; 2006(1)MhLj28; (2005)7SCC440; 2005(2)LC1345(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated October 30, 2001 in First Appeal No. 981 of 1996. By the aforesaid judgment the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra/respondent No.1 herein and held that the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference was barred by limitation.2. The sole question which, therefore, arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the said application filed by the appellant herein under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by time. 3. The facts of the case in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:-One Kulkarni held a lease executed on December 3, 1979 for a period of 20 years in respect of an area of 142 Hectares 78 Ares from the State of Maharashtra for mining Silica sand. The aforesaid lessee applied to the State of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3464; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)965; 2005(6)ALT67(SC); 2005(4)AWC3457(SC); (2006)1GLR142; [2006(2)JCR178(SC)]; 2005(4)MhLj1171; (2006)2MLJ174(SC); (2005)7SCC431; 2005(2)LC13
B.P. Singh, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahemdabad dated November 7, 2000 in First Appeals Nos.7957 to 7969 of 1999 whereby the High Court held that the application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by limitation. 2. The facts of the case are few and undisputed. Pursuant to acquisition proceeding taken under the Land Acquisition Act, an award was declared under Section 11 of the Act on January 17, 1982. The respondents filed an application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act on September 22, 1988. The High Court held that since the application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of declaration of the award, the same was barred by limitation. Hence, the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the State of Gujarat and quashed the judgment and awards passed by the Ref...
Tag this Judgment!