Bombay Prevention Of Fragmentation And Consilidation Of Holdings Act 1947 Chapter 5 - Judgment Search Results

Patel Jividas Trikamdas and ors. Vs. Collector and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1997Guj121; (1996)2GLR688

act 1947 articles 226 and 227 of constitution of india bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings amendment act 1953 1947 articles 226 and 227 of constitution of india bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings amendment act 1953 and holdings act 1947 are designed to provide for prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings and for their consolidation one of the constitution of india bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings amendment act 1953 and section 38b of orissa estate abolition 9 penalty for transfer or partition contrary to provisions of act 1 the transfer or partition of any land contrary to the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 are designed to provide for prevention of fragmentation of agricultural i of the said act deals with the preliminary provisions chapter ii of the act is very important for our purpose act section 4 deals with settlement of standard areas section 5 deals with determination and revision of standard areas for the

Shantaram Babu Longale Vs. Balaram Krishna Patil and Others

Court : Mumbai

concerned and determine the standard area para 10 and 11 bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation holdings act 1947 section by both the counsel 24 second appeal is dismissed bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation holdings act 1947 section 2 the local area where the scheme of the prevention of fragmentation was made applicable or the land is from the area thereof so as to reduce the number of plots in holdings a consolidation officer is appointed to perform all the functions relied on section 8 and section 21 of the said act 5 the trial court and the first appellate court both scheme of bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation holdings act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the said act so the agreement the effect of consolidation proceedings and consolidation of holdings and chapter v is general in respect of powers of the settlement for the purpose of alienation of the consolidated holdings para 5 and 14 court held section 31 of the said

Bapurao Ragho DeThe Vs. Ganpati Vithu Rohankar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR409

not at all affected by the provisions contained in the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 the order as to costs property eviction section 5 1 of prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 respondent landlord affected by the provisions contained in the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 the learned counsel for contained in the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited be treated as void under section 9 1 of the act the said ganpati vithu rohankar was a party to the the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holding act 1947 was applied to vidarbha region with effect from 1st april a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code in terms of section 41 a said decree the respondent no 1 preferred civil appeal no 51 of 1972 by an appellate decree dated 3rd july 1975

V.S. Charati Vs. HusseIn Nhanu Jamadar (Dead) by Lrs

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1999SC1488; JT1998(8)SC120; 1998(6)SCALE227; (1999)1SCC273; [1998]Supp3SCR30; 1999(1)LC496(SC)

sub section 4 of section 43 ib nothing in the bombay prevention of fragmentation consolidation of holdings act 1947 shall affect section 4 of section 43 ib nothing in the bombay prevention of fragmentation consolidation of holdings act 1947 shall affect the result in contravention of the provisions of bombay prevention of fragmentation consolidation of holdings act 1947 therefore by virtue of the ib nothing in the bombay prevention of fragmentation consolidation of holdings act 1947 shall affect the termination of any tenancy under 43 ib therefore overrides the preceding provisions of the said act section 43 ie which forms a part of chapter iii provisions of bombay prevention of fragmentation consolidation of holdings act 1947 therefore by virtue of the dismissal of the appellant s members and ex members of the armed forces under this chapter section 43 ib provides inter alia that it shall be was not challenged by the respondent the order of 31 5 1961 has become final and the decision rendered by the

Sushilbai Nagesh Chandorkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1975Bom106; (1974)76BOMLR540

fixed by the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act 1948 bombay act no 67 of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the and notwithstanding anything contained in section 31 of the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 these provisions anything contained in section 31 of the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 these provisions therefore show to us 20 order accordingly maharashtra agricultural lands ceiling on holdings act mah act xxvii of 1961 sections 19 20 21 special civil applications is that section 19 of the ceiling act confers an independent power upon the landlord to resume land the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 these provisions therefore show that there are different types of limited even qua extent by the various restrictions imposed in chapter iii 11 chapter iii a of the tenancy act contains government issued a notification bearing no g n r d 5157 173 483 m dated february 14 1958 published in the

Balkisan Manekchand Zaver and others Vs. Jalgaon People's Co-operative ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR689; 1998(3)BomCR70; (1998)1BOMLR279; 1998(2)MhLj147

not confirmed by registrar provisions of section 53a inapplicable d bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 sections rules framed thereunder as per section 31 of the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 notwithstanding anything ambit of section 31 1 3 e bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 sections 9 31aa bank 53a inapplicable d bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 sections 9 31 3 and maharashtra co operative 2 195 under section 54 of the bombay cooperative societies act 1925 against the present petitioners on 14 4 1957 the the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holding act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act of 1947 for short present case as per the scheme of the new act chapter xi deals with the settlement of disputes under section 91 land belonging to the petitioners to respondent bank under section 59 a 1 of the old act which corresponds to the

Velpur Gram Panchayat and anr. Vs. Asst. Director of Marketing, Guntur ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1998(1)ALD625

the supreme court in valjibhai muljibhai soneji v state of bombay 1964 3scr686 was considering the meaning of the expression local was considered whether the provisions east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation second amendment validation act 1960 was to be whether the provisions east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation second amendment validation act 1960 was to be considered to which the question was considered whether the provisions east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation second amendment validation act 1960 markets by virtue of section 104 2 d of the act several other provisions are also pointed out from the act virtue of such 73rd amendment of the constitution a special chapter ix regarding the panchayats from article 243 to article 243o no right to seek any relief in this writ petition 5 although the respondents have denied or challenged the public auction

G.J. Kanga and anr. Vs. S.S. Basha

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR582; (1993)95BOMLR632

1982 was therefore issued under section 354 a of the bombay municipal corporation act the plaintiff vide his reply dated 29th with the provisions of the east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act the question which was posed before the provisions of the east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act the question which was posed before the supreme court court was concerned with the provisions of the east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act the question which was have intended to conform to the law he may have actually conformed though by accident his notice may have miscarried i proposal robinson v minister of town country planning reported in 1947 1 all e r 851 though the ultimate decision may intention that the judicial or quasi judicial powers contained in chapter vi a were expressly intended to be delegated to the a result of which ram swaroop who had obtained only 593 votes was declared elected the learned counsel further urged that

Yeshwant Ramchandra Dhumal Deceased by L.Rs. Vs. Shri Shankar Maruti D ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR128; AIR2001Bom384

a complete code in itself for the appellants under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 it the bar contained in section 36 a of the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 earlier the in itself for the appellants under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 it provides for the appellants under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 it provides for the determination of local and under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act two blocks known the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act two blocks known as a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code in terms of section 41 a v dr ajay upadyay anr 2006 cri lj 4274 2006 5 air bom r held per incuriam

Shri Dattu Appa Patil (Since Deceased, by Legal Heirs and Representati ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2006(6)ALLMR421; 2006(6)BomCR246

dismissed property variation under consolidation scheme section 32 1 of bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 adjoining 3b in 1962 the consolidation scheme framed under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 for short 1962 the consolidation scheme framed under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 for short the said framed under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 for short the said act came to be of maharashtra is passed under section 35 of the said act section 35 of the said act refers to the power of bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act 1947 adjoining lands belonging to father of original petitioner and father a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code in terms of section 41 a 230 of 1989 it was dismissed on 19 3 1991 5 it appears that in the meantime respondent 3 made a