BharathAditya

The landmark Supreme Court judgment that established the validity of this Act and the right to reclaim property is Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka (1984) . However, more recent "apex court" rulings have introduced critical limitations on when you can reclaim such land. The primary legislation governing this in Karnataka is the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 , commonly known as the PTCL Act . 1. Key Apex Court Judgments While the PTCL Act is a powerful tool for restoration, the Supreme Court has set boundaries to prevent "stale" claims: Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka (1984): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the PTCL Act. It confirmed that the State has the power to nullify transfers of "granted land" made in violation of the grant conditions to protect marginalized communities. Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2017): This is perhaps the most impo...

Important judgments on POCSO Act  POCSO Act Imp. Judgments 1. Arjun Malge Vs. State of Maharashtra Bom HC 2021 Held : Notice of hearing of case and bail application is mandatory to victim.  2.Aparna Bhat vs. State of M P. Supreme Court 2021 Held: Notice to victim must. Bail conditions should not be arbitrary.  3.Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India Supreme Court 2019 Identity of victim should be concealed. Guidelines given.  4.Sangita Tanpure Vs. state of Maharashtra 2020 Bom HC Identity of victim to be concealed. Not to mention name in charge, deposition. More elaborate guidelines laid down.  5.State of Karnataka Vs. Shivanna 2014 Supreme Court Copy of statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. of victim not to be given to accused until filing of chargesheet.  6. Atul Ambale vs. Maharashtra 2022 Bom HC Held.- Evidence of victim to be recorded within 30 days from chargesheet.  (Directions to POCSO Courts)  7. XYZ  vs. state of MP 2022 Supreme Court Inc...