Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench in order to resolve a conflict between the conflicting views which have been expressed by two Division Benches of this Court. In our detailed order dated 24th April, 2014 we noticed that conflict and by consent of parties we formulated the questions which have to be answered by us. They read as under:- (1) Does Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 save the orders of exemption including all terms and conditions thereof passed under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and all actions taken there-under? (2) Whether, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 apply to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repealing Act, 1999? (3) Whether in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR40
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This is a petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6th November, 1989 made by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act of 1976). The facts leading the present petition are as under:The petitioner-Kantibhai Vallabhbhai Patel is one of the sons of Vallabhbhai Patel. The said Vallabhbhai passed away in the year 1968 leaving behind him his widow, the respondent No. 6 herein, and the petitioner and two other sons Natwarlal Vallabhbhai Patel and Mahendrabhai Vallabhbhai Patel, the respondents Nos. 5 and 4 respectively. He had left certain agricultural lands and also a residential house. The agricultural lands comprised of Survey No. 195 admeasuring 4856 sq.meters and Survey No. 673 admeasuring 4956 sq.meters. Admittedly, on the appointed day, the respondent No. 4 Mahendrabhai was a minor. Upon introduct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)5MLJ376
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 7811 of 1996 passed by the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff who has lost his case before the trial Court has preferred this appeal. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, for consequential injunction and for mandatory injunction to remove the fence put up by the defendant in the suit property.2. The short facts of the case of the plaintiff in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:The Assistant Commissioner of Urban and Land Tax Kundrathur, Chennai had initiated proceedings in respect of the suit property in RC. No. 3831/85A dated 27/28.4.1989 under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Against this, the plaintiff had filed Writ Petition No. 6686/1989 to quash the proceedings and also sought stay of all further proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)GLR776
M.R. Calla, J.1. The State of Gujarat has come in appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th May 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4015 of 1990 whereby the petition was allowed and the judgment and order dated 8th September 1989 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.B.R.4 of 1989 confirming the orders at Annexures.A and B in Special Civil Application as had been passed by the Dy.Collector, Mamlatdar and ALT in so far as the bid land Survey No.111/2 admeasuring 30 acres and 30 gunthas and Survey No. 111/3 admeasuring 529 acres and 27 gunthas are concerned was quashed and set aside and the Rule was made absolute.2. The controversy between the parties hinges around the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 and the amendment made therein vide Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972 and the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Urban Land (Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1987Cal326,(1987)1CALLT371(HC),92CWN72
G.N. Ray, J.1. This Rule namely C.R. No. 11382(W) of 1982 has been heard analogously with other Civil Rules because common questions of law are involved in all these cases. Civil Rule No. 11382(W) of 1982 and a number of other writ cases challenging the vires of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. On 12th December, 1985, the said Division Bench was pleased to make a reference to the Special Bench by the following order : --'These groups of writ petitions challenge the vires of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. On the question of applicability of the Act to certain kinds of land, it may become necessary to reconsider a Division Bench decision of this Court in Appeal No. 239 of 1978 (Jatadhari Daw & Grandsons v. Smt. Radha Debi) pronounced on September 6, 1985 (reported in 1986 (1) Cal HN 21). We deem it desirable that these groups of writ petitions may properly engag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)2CALLT183(HC),100CWN900
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. These Appeals principally raising the question of constitutionality of West Bengal Land beforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Amendment Act) and West Bengal Land beforms (Amendment) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Amendment) Act were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the main matter namely Appeal from Order No. 400/92 arising out of Matter No. 1367/87 (Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) two applications for amendment have been filed questioning the Constitutional First Amendment Act, 1951 in so far as it purported to insert Article 31B; Sections 6,7,8 and 2 of the Constitution (44th) Amendment Act, 1978 the Constitution (66th) Amendment Act, 1991 in so far as 9th Schedule of the Constitution was amended by inserting West Bengal Act No. 1980 Item No. 251 therein and the Constitution (78th) Amendment Act, 1995 in so far as the West Bengal Land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The State of Gujarat and the Mamlatdar & Agriculture are the appellants. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 11.10.2000 and the final order of the Division Bench dated 20.10.2000 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.597/2000 in Special Civil Application No.4015 of 1990. By the said impugned judgment and the final order, the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.4015 of 1990 dated 06.05.1999.2. The second appellant herein initiated proceedings under the provisions of The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1960') and after hearing the interested party, passed an order dated 24.08.1982 in Ceiling Case No.2 of 1976 holding that the land to an extent of 587 acres 35 Gunthas was in excess of ceiling limit and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. PREFACE:- A) This writ petition is one more in the series of matters where jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked not by rightful owners but builders and developers, to reclaim the vacant lands in excess of ceiling limits, which have already vested in the State. The surplus land holders and owners of these lands very well know that their fate is sealed for they are divested of their right, title and interest in these lands by due process of law. However, they are propped up by builders and developers with ulterior motives to file such petitions by relying on the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Principal Act) in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 29th November, 2007. Though physical possession of these lands is with the State and not challenged by the owners and surplus vacant land holders at the relevant time, now they raise such challenge being financed by builders and dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(5)MPHT173; 2002(3)MPLJ561
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for quashment of order dated 7-7-1984, Annexure P-3, passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby a draft statement was published under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.2. Mr. L.N. Namdeo, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised two fold contentions, namely, the land of the petitioners was not included in the master plan of Jabalpur and, therefore, it could not have been treated as vacant land and, therefore, determination of land as surplus as has been done by the competent authority under the Act is null and void in view of the decision rendered in the case of Atia Mohammadi Begum v. The State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2465, and the decision by this Court in W.P. No. 833/91, decided on 12-12-1995 (Trilok Singh Yadav v. Stale of M.P. and Ors.); and secondly the possession of the land having not been taken over as envisaged und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1568; (1980)4SCC295; [1980]3SCR1143
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals by special leave and the writ petitions represent a last but desparate attempt by the class of land-holders in Andhra Pradesh to defeat an agrarian reform legislation enacted by the State for the benefit of the weaker sections of community. It is indeed a matter of regret that a, statute intended to strike at concentration of land in the hands of a few and to act as a great equaliser by reducing inequality in holding of land between the haves and the have-nots should have practically remained unimplemented for a period of over seven years. Unfortunately, this is the common fate of much of our social welfare legislation.2. We can boast of some of the finest legislative measures calculated to ameliorate the socio-economic conditions of the poor and the deprived and to reach social and economic justice to them, but regretably, a large part of such legislation has remained merely on paper, and the benefits of such legislation have not reached the common ma...
Tag this Judgment!