them, and supported the claim of excess lands being given away. The Apex Court rejected both the

In case of FCT v Whitford Beach Pty Ltd (1982), The tax payer, a group of fisherman, acquired a land in 1954 to hold the property for domestic purpose of the shareholder. However, three companies wanted to buy the land and reselling the land for profit. Instead of buying the

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

In Chapter 6, Wilkins discusses how the disclaimer clauses. These clauses keep states from exercising authority on Indian land (180). They are an “important but often overlooked tool in the arsenal available to tribes to assert their own sovereignty against state threats” (177). A specific example of a disclaimer clause is Wisconsin’s territorial disclaimer of 1836 which prohibited territories or states from having any authority on Indian land (180). In Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council (1959) it was declared that Indian tribes actually have a higher status than states (179). This was a major victory for Indians in their fight for sovereignty. United States v. Rickert (1903) was also a win for sovereignty in that the Court prohibited South Dakota from taxing Indian land (185).After the verdict in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the balance of power between state and federal government leaned towards the states. Before this, negotiations with tribes had been conducted at the federal level and not with states (187). This was against the idea of sovereignty because now the states had more power over the tribes and could abuse that power for personal gain.

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

The trial court denied appellant judgment against appellees because he found appellees had not acted for or on behalf of J&R Construction.

In addition, selection was opposed and obstructed by the squatters who used their superior knowledge of land conditions, political and financial influence, and evasion of certain regulations of the Land Acts to amass large holdings of premium land, leaving poorer land to selectors. ... 17

Facts of the case (Summary of facts of case and its journey to Supreme Court)

The matter was presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and AAT has different views on this matter and AAT considered the historical Cases and

The Court was hearing an appeal by the CCI against the order dated Feb. 15, 2010 of the Tribunal in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Jindal Steel had

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will address the legality of the case by reviewing the definition and analysis of General Investment (GI) as a holder in due course. Next, this review will analyze the business effects

Being one of the most extensive law reforms of the Law Commission, Land Registration Act 2002 aims to create a flawless legal framework for land registration, especially in terms of conveyancing with emphasis on overriding interests and adverse possession. It is agreed that the Land Registration Act 2002 (hereafter LRA 2002), by putting emphasis on strict registration, moved the idea of land ownership from ownership by possession to bureaucratization of title via registration. Therefore, LRA 2002 is said to bring further strictness and clarity to land ownership and subsequent conveyancing. In conjunction, LRA 2002 was expected to bring an “e-conveyancing revolution” to land registration which was awaited to be a major success. Although steps are taken towards this development, it is claimed that there is still long way to go before a complete and problem-free e-conveyancing system. Apart from matters relating to conveyancing, LRA 2002 consists of sections regarding overriding interests where their number and scope are widely reduced with specifications of registration introduced. Moreover, the Act includes strictly drafted provisions about adverse possession, aiming to bring further restrictions to this matter by bringing further difficulties to the acquisition of title and therefore shifting from a squatter prone approach to a registered owner supporting view.

A bench of the Supreme Court has in Bankura Municipality v. Lalji Raja and Sons[2] held that:

The government's move to acquire fertile agriculture lands for industry has agitated the farmers who are dependent on the lands for livelihood. Ever since the notification regarding the acquisition was published by the state revenue department on December 4 2008, the farmers to be affected have been holding meetings in Haripura, Charal, Bol and Siyawada villages and have decided to launch an agitation against the acquisition of their lands. However Government declared that it was not taking for free and the price of the land at Rs 1,200 per square

The Land Registration Act (LRA) 1925 has drawn much flak over the years with regards to one of its most important provisions on overriding interests (OI), which often goes unnoticed until it swoops up and takes priority over the rights of a future purchaser. These interests often come in the form of other occupiers in the property with an equitable interest and, like in the case of Boland , this leaves the lender in a tight spot when they find out about the existence of these interests only after they have initiate proceedings for possession against the defaulting borrowers. Due to the other occupier’s concealed nature on the property register, the lenders have regained their footing by applying the concept of overreaching and ….. The Law Commission, on the other hand, contemplated abolishing these interest altogether but did not go to that extent because it was neither feasible nor desirable Instead, they shrank their impact on land by reforming the operation and scope of the OI. With LRA 2002 sch 3 para 2, lenders now have more control over what may bite them. …. This essay will access…. with a focus on how the lending world have dealt with the implications of Boland…. The best way to access the impact of … would be to go through the pre – post blabla to show how the thing has balanced.