Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: forest act 1927 section 81 · Page 1 of about 76 results (0.041 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Mar 24 2008

Oberoi Constructions Private Limited a Company Registered Under the Co ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-24-2008

Subject : Environment

Acts : Aircrafts Act; Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 - Sections 354A; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 - Sections 3(1), 4(1), 9 and 10(1); Cantonment Act, 1910; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 5; Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 57; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 48A, 51A, 141, 226, 227, 245, 246, 246(1), 300A and 372(1); Development Control Regulations, 1991;Evidence Act - Sections 114; Forest Act, 1865 - Sections 34A and 38; Forest Act, 1878; Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Government of India Act 1935; Greater Bombay Laws and the Bombay High Court (Declaration of Limits) Act, 1945; Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 1, 2, 2A, 3 to 26, 34., 34A, 35, 35(1), 35(3), 35(4), 36, 36A, 36B, 36C, 37 and 38; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11A; Limitat

Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR546; 2008(3)BomCR408; (2008)110BOMLR951

the individual petitions. The action proceeds on the basis that once notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, hereinafter referred to as '1927 Act', is issued, any land in respect of which such notice has been … the case of the petitioners; that respondent No. 2, Collector (Mumbai Suburban District) vide order bearing No. LND.A 8143 of 1961 dated 23rd March, 1961 has on the application of Burroughs Welcome converted the land bearing Survey

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 15 2017

State of Uttaranchal Vs. M/S. Kumaon Stone Crusher

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-2017

Subject : Right to Information

and State of Madhya Pradesh is in question. 3. In exercise of power under Section 41 of Indian Forest Act , 1927 (hereinafter referred to as “1927 Act) rules have been framed by different States. State of U.P. has framed … found and obtained in the natural form, hence it is a forest produce. Veneer and waste plywood 71 81. The veneer is nothing but thin sheets of wood which are cut from existing logs & planks, which

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 22 2026

Brajendra Singh Mann vs Dy Conservator of Forest and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-22-2026

Subject : Land Acquisition

5 of 12purposes of creation of reserved forest/ridge forest. 11.5. Once a notification is issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 5 operates as a bar against acquisition of fresh rights in respect of such land, and the Petitioner … No. 25 (4-16) was covered by that notification.5. On approaching the revenue authorities, the Petitioner discovered thatproceedings under Section 81 of DLR Act had been instituted against Tara Chand, shown as the recorded bhumidar in the revenue record,

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Sep 13 2006

Deputy Conservator of Forest and ors. Vs. Vinodbhai Muljibhai Patel

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-13-2006

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Forest Act - Sections 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 27, 34(A), 35 and 37; Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972 - Sections 3, 3(1), 3(2) and 23; Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 96

Reported in : AIR2007Guj81

trial Court was that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section-(1) of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, in its application to the State of Bombay, a Notification dated 9th September, 1954 was issued bearing No. … defendants are not interfering with the plaintiff's possession, injunction could not be granted in favour of the plaintiff. 81, refers to 351 Acres and 26 Gunthas of land, but, from the facts, it would clearly appear that

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 17 2014

Planters Forum Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-17-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

reform came up for consideration. It was contended that the provisions of 1960 Act were repugnant to the Forest Act, 1927. Section 4A providing for vesting was introduced in the 1960 Act by amendment in the year 1978. On the … the concept of distribution as engrained in Article 39(b) has laid down the following in paragraphs 80 and 81."0. This takes us to the non-negotiable minimum of nexus between the purpose of the acquisition and Article 39(b).

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 28 1983

Daya Shanker Singh Vs. the Conservator of Forest (Southern Zone) and a ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-28-1983

Subject : Environment

Acts : Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 32; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Reported in : AIR1984All188

the Conservator.5. The forest lots purchased by the petitioners are situate in vested forest. Sec. 32 of the Forest Act, 1927, confers power on the State Government to frame statutory rules regulating cutting, felling and removal of the trees … contained in the Standing Orders. The petitioners are entitled to their cost. Enviornment - extension of contract - Section 32 of Forest Act, 1927 - application made by forest contractor for extension of contract on the ground

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 08 1989

Parisar an Organisation and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-08-1989

Subject : Environment

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 31(D), 37 and 37(1); Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Sections 2; Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 3; Constitution of India - Articles 48A, 51A and 226

Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR79

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 were not applicable.The expression 'forest land' had not been defined under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, however, gives some clue … the relevant facts are that the suit land is about 1/4th portion of the land under Survey No. 81, Bhamburda, Pune. Its situation is almost at the top of a hill popularly known as Hanuman Hill. The

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 09 1994

Mohinder Pal Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : May-09-1994

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992 - Sections 1, 4 and 5; ;Constitution of India - Articles 31, 31A, 31A(1), 31A(2), 31C, 39 and 245

Reported in : AIR1995HP15

officer duly appointed in that behalf by the State Government.' 11. These provisions form part of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as Sections 80 and 81. They provide for the management of forest either by the Government or by … Before passing of this Act, the State Government issued Notification No. Rev. D(F)7-1/90, dated January 19, 1990, under Section 3 of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Article 1957 directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to take

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 11 2010

Maharashtra Land Development Corporation and ors. Vs. State of Maharas ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-11-2010

Subject : Land Acquisition

Acts : Bombay Salsette Estate Abolition Act, 1951 - Section 4; Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 35(3), 6, 2(f), 2 c(i) (ii); Bombay Land Revenue Code - Section 37; Maharashtra Private (Acquisition) Forest Act, 1975

was issued by the State Government to the Company under sub-Section (3) of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 calling upon the Company, the owner of the land, to show cause as to why notification under sub-Section

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 31 2017

M/S. Innoventive Industries Ltd Vs. Icici Bank

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-31-2017

Subject : Land Acquisition

8 SCC708 this Court examined the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 vis-à-vis the Forest Act, 1927 and found that there was no repugnancy between the two. This Court held:“52. The aforesaid position makes it … subject- “exercise matter...” and secondly, whether law of their power over the 81 Parliament was intended “to be exhaustive to cover the entire field”. The … NCLT held that the Code would prevail against the Maharashtra Act in view of the non-obstante clause in Section 238 of the Code. It, therefore, held that the Parliamentary statute would prevail over the State statute and

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial