TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds decree, dismisses Govt appeal, orders costs. Respondents entitled to compensation for land improvements.</h1> <h3>Sirkar Versus Mahadeva Iyer Venkitasubramania Iyer</h3> Sirkar Versus Mahadeva Iyer Venkitasubramania Iyer - TMI Issues:- Appeal by the Government against compensation decree for improvements on poramboke land- Ownership dispute over the land- Entitlement to compensation under Travancore Land Conservancy Act- Bar of limitation- Quantum of compensation awardedAnalysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Government of Travancore against a decree awarding compensation to the Respondents for improvements on 82 cents of poramboke land. The court established that the land belonged to the Government, and the Respondents were registered holders of only 20 acres and 12 cents, not 20 acres and 94 cents as claimed. The court also noted that the possession of the Respondents, though long, was not sufficient for adverse possession against the Government under the Travancore Limitation Act.The Government raised several points in support of the appeal. Firstly, they argued that as the Respondents were trespassers without title to the land, they were not entitled to compensation under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act. Secondly, the Government contended that the suit was barred by limitation. Lastly, they challenged the amount of compensation awarded as excessive. The court declined to consider the limitation issue as it was not raised earlier and did not address the compensation quantum challenge since it was not raised in the appeal.Regarding the entitlement to compensation under the Land Conservancy Act, the court referred to Section 9 of the Act, emphasizing the Government's power to evict trespassers. However, the court highlighted that the right to remove improvements could only be denied if there was an unequivocal order of forfeiture, which was not the case here. The court cited precedents acknowledging a trespasser's right to remove improvements made on the land.Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decree, dismissing the Government's appeal and ordering them to pay costs. The judgment reaffirmed the Respondents' entitlement to compensation for the improvements made on the poramboke land, emphasizing the importance of recognizing a trespasser's right to remove such improvements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
