BHAIYA RAMANUJ PRATAP DEOversusLALU MAHESHANUJ PRATAP DEO & ORS. AND VICE-VERSA
1981 INSC 15126 August 1981Disposed off
Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo, holder of the impartible Nagaruntari estate, executed an unregistered maintenance (khorposh) deed in 1952 granting eight villages to his brother’s son, Lalu Maheshanuj. The plaintiff alleged fraud and that the deed was void under Section 12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act and the Bi…
RAMESH BEJOY SHARMA AND ORS.versusPASHUPATI RAI AND ORS.
1979 INSC 12117 July 1979Dismissed
The plaintiff, an intermediary landlord, sued the respondents, tenants‑at‑will, for possession of agricultural land after a notification under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 had vested the plaintiff's estate in the State. The trial court held the plaintiff was in "khas" possession and could evict; the Hi…
ANOSH EKKAversusSTATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
2026 INSC 35713 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed
The former Jharkhand minister Anosh Ekka was convicted in two separate cases arising from the same set of allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and misusing his office. The High Court rejected his application for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of the appeal, prompting a special leave pet…
SITU SAHU AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
2004 INSC 50810 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, who had been in possession of land since 1938, challenged a 1978 order under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act that restored possession of the land to a Scheduled‑Tribe claimant alleging fraudulent transfer. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 71A could be applied retrospectively to a t…
KAMLA NETI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
2022 INSC 12649 December 2022Dismissed
The appellant, Kamla Neti, a daughter of a coparcener belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, claimed a one‑fifth share of compensation awarded for land acquired by the State, invoking the survivorship right under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Reference Court and the Orissa High Court rejected her claim on the ground tha…
MADHU KISHWAR AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
1996 INSC 4897 April 1996Disposed off
The petitioners, tribal women from Bihar, challenged Sections 7, 8 and 76 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 as discriminatory against women and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 applied to Scheduled …