Mumbai Court September 1968 Judgments
Jagpalsingh Sajjansingh Vs. Digamber Tulsiram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom122; (1969)71BOMLR545; ILR1970Bom592; 1969MhLJ347
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is the landholder, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal holding that his revision application against the order of the Special Deputy Collector in appeal, which order in its turn reversed the order of the Naib Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner, was barred by 'limitation and therefore rejected.2. The petitioner claims to be landholder of field survey No. 18/2, area 24 acres 30 gunthas of Koltek, tahsil Amravati. He filed an application on 27-3-1961 for possession of land having previously given a notice under Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The petitioner wanted the land for personal cultivation. The respondent Tulsiram who was originally impleaded as the respondent died on 17-10-1961 and in his place the present respondents, Digambar and Ambadas sons of Tulsiram and Deokabai wife of Tulsiram, were brought ...
Tag this Judgment!Waman Suryabhan and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom167; (1969)71BOMLR553; ILR1970Bom438; 1969MhLJ375
1. This is a tenants' petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal holding that the respondents Nos, 3 and 4 were entitled to restoration of possession of two fields, Survey Nos. 56 and 72/2 of mouza Kasarkhed, tahsil Bala-pur. District Akola. The litigation has had a chequered career and it will be necessary to trace a few facts. 2. These two fields were cultivated by Suryabhan who had acquired the rights of a protected lessee under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. Digambar the predecessor-in-title of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 gave a notice under Section 9(1) of the Leases Act terminating the tenancy of Suryabhan, On the basis of this notice, two proceedings came to be started, one by Suryabhan and another by Digambar. Digambar started proceedings under Section 8 (1) (g) of the Leases Act challenging the order terminating the lease and Suryabhan's ap placation registered as Revenue Case No. 94/59/56-57...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Vali Mohammad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom294; (1969)71BOMLR1; 1969CriLJ1101; ILR1969Bom422; 1969MhLJ208
Kotval, C.J. 1. Vali Mohammad Jan Mohammad was tried before the additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, for the murder of the Mohammad and was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death. When the papers were submitted to this Court for confirmation of the sentence to death. When the papers were submitted to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death, the case was heard along with the appeal filed by the accused, Criminal Appeal No. 899 of 1968 A division Bench of this Court (Tarkunde and Gatne, JJ.) have confirmed the conviction in appeal but have referred a question of law as regards the sentence to be imposed in such cases. The question arises in view of a conflict of decisions in this Counts, the question referred is as follows:-After the amendment of sub-section (5) of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Central Act XXVI of 1955, is it correct to hold that the normal penalty for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is death, and...
Tag this Judgment!Gitabai Vs. Dayaram Shankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom160; (1970)72BOMLR32; ILR1970Bom572; 1969MhLJ838
ORDER1. This is a landlord's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dayaram, respondent No. 1, filed an application on 21-5-1963 before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal requesting that he should bedeclared a tenure-holder and purchaser of field No. 11, area 18 acres 27, gunthas of mouza Nund-dhan, in Amravati district. He impleaded the respondent No. 2 Sukhadeo as a non-applicant to this application. Dayaram claimed that he had been holding the land as a tenant from before 1958-59, that he had acquired the rights of a tenant and was entitled to purchase the land and that he had made an offer of purchase by a notice on 5-12-1962. Along with the application, Dayaram filed a certified copy of the latest entry of the record-of-rights showing Sukhdeo as an occupant in column 9 and Dayaram as a protected lessee from 1952-53 to 1956-57, in column 11 of that document. It appears Sukhadeo preferred to remain absent but the present petitioner Gitabai filed an application for being implea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›