Revenue Recovery Act

The appellant, a contractor, entered into a 1966 agreement with the State of Kerala to complete work within ten months, but failed to do so and the contract was terminated in 1968. The State served a demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act on 30 May 1974, which the appellant contested by a writ petition. In 1983 t…

The appellant, Y. Satyanarayana Reddy, occupied 1 acre 21 guntas of government land in Lingojiguda, Andhra Pradesh. The Mandal Revenue Officer filed a land‑grabbing petition, leading the Land Grabbing Tribunal to order eviction. The Special Court, however, remitted the matter, later allowing the appellant to retain pos…

The Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation sought contributions from the factories of High Land Coffee Works and Sons under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Section 1(4) of the Act excludes "seasonal factories," defined in Section 2(12). The factories were originally classified as seas…

The State of Karnataka entered into agreements with private contractors that contained Clause 12, which stipulated that any damages for breach of conditions would be assessed by the State and could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act. After a contractor was found to have short‑deliver…

The appellants held a usufructuary mortgage over land mortgaged by the respondents in 1958, 1959 and 1961. While the mortgage subsisted, the property was attached under the Revenue Recovery Act for the mortgagor's agricultural income tax arrears and sold at public auction, the highest bid being the son of the mortgagee…

The State of Uttar Pradesh sued Kishori Lal for the shortfall of Rs 20,100 that arose when the excise licences he won at a public auction were resold at a lower price because he failed to deposit one‑sixth of the bid amount as required by the Excise Rules. The respondent argued that no contract was completed under Arti…

The mortgagor, an agriculturist, hypothecated two parcels of land to a mortgagee under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947. After default, the mortgagee obtained an execution and, although a compromise discharged the debt, it retained possession of the lands. The mortgagor’s representatives filed an execut…

The State of Kerala challenged the classification of a document executed by McDowell & Co. under Form VI of the Distillery and Warehouse Rules, required by Section 7 of the Kerala Abkari Act for deferred export duty, as an agreement rather than a bond for stamp duty purposes. The High Court held the instrument to be an…

S.K.G. Sugar Ltd., a sugar factory with a reserved area under the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, paid the Central Government‑fixed minimum price of Rs.13.92 per quintal for sugarcane as prescribed in the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The State Government, acting in its statutory capac…

Ganesan was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 based solely on the testimony of a 13‑year‑old victim (PW‑3). The trial court sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment (the minimum under Section 8) and ordered Rs 1 lakh compensatio…

The respondent, KokiYat Estates, had mortgaged extensive plantation land to a bank, with the State of Kerala acting as guarantor. Subsequent land‑ceiling and private‑forest statutes vested large portions of the mortgaged land in the State free of encumbrances, and later the State paid off the loan and obtained an assig…

The appellants Rakesh Kumar Goel and others purchased two government plots in Ghaziabad through an auction purportedly held under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. The High Court set aside the auction on the ground that the appellants failed to deposit the required 25% of the bid immed…

The appeal arose from the appellant, a driver of KSRTC, who failed to vacate a government quarter after being transferred and whose eviction order was upheld by the High Court but later set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court examined the effectiveness of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, …

The appellants filed a suit for specific performance but initially paid only a deficient court fee. After multiple representations and condonation of delay, the trial court allowed the deficit fee to be paid well beyond the limitation period. The second defendant, a pendente‑lite purchaser, was impleaded and challenged…