Mumbai Court January 1982 Judgments
Gulabbhai Bapubhai Gawandi Vs. Sonubai Bapurao Katkar (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR187
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition arises out of proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Tenancy Act'. Five lands were the subject-matter of the tenancy of the petitioner. Those lands are situated in Village Wathar in Phaltan Taluka of Satara Distirct. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/1, 40/3 and 40/6 originally belonged to one Krishna Maruti Parit after whose death respondent No. 3 succeeded to the lands as the owner. Respondent No. 3, therefore, became the landlord of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. Two other lands, namely lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/2 and 40/5 originally belonged to one Ranu Keru Parit and the first respondent in this petition is the heir of the said Ranu Keru Parit. She is now the landlady of the petitioner in respect of the said two lands.2. Proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act were held and as the courts below have found, notice of these proceedings was adm...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal Shankar Dokhe Vs. Bhavdu Sakharam Dokhe (Deceased) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR27
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This is the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the landlord challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, dated September 15, 1979. Detailed facts are not necessary to be stated because at the time of admission a limited rule was granted by this Court.2. On reference by Civil Court two issues were referred to the Tenancy Court. They are :---(A) Whether the defendant proves that he has become a tenant purchaser of the suit land?(B) Whether the further proves that he is a tenant of the suit land?3. The Tahsildar answered both these issues in the negative and held that the respondents are not the tenant-purchasers and are not the tenants of the suit land. On appeal, the Assistant Collector reversed the findings recorded by the Tenancy Court and held that the present respondents have become tenant-purchasers and they are the tenants of the suit land and thus answered the reference in the affirmative by his judgment and order, dat...
Tag this Judgment!Birju Makadwala Alias Birju Satva Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR960
V. V. Joshi, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-detenu has challenged the order date 17th May, 1982 made under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 under which he has been detained since 17th May, 1982.2. The ground of detention served on the detenu mention three grounds on which he has been detained. Shri Kulkarni for the petitioner-detenu has contended that none of the grounds has any nexus with public order. The second contention is that there has been unexplained delay in considering the representation made by the detenu to the State Government.3. The third ground of detention is based on an incident dated 5-2-1982 under which the petitioner-detenu and his three unknown associates are alleged to have assaulted one Prakash Narayan with bamboos. This incident led to the registration of C. R. No. 84 of 1982 of Vokola Police Station under sections 326- 114 I.P.C. We have been referred to the documentary material on which this ground of detention was based. The first ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›