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 : AIR1984Guj145; (1984)2GLR1001
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. This matter comes up before the Full Bench on the following order of reference by our learned brother P. D. Desai and R. C. Mankad, jj'The papers of !he case to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for f,onstitution of a larger Bench to consider the question whether or not there is any material and substantial distinction between the provisions of sub-section (2), S. 7 of the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 (since repealed) and Clause (b) of subscc. (1) of S. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulalion) Act. 1976 and whether, therefore, a conditional decree for specific performance, subject to the condition of the plaintiff ob,aining exemption from the State Government under Clause (b) of sub-see. (1) of S. 20A the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 can or cannot be passed, following the decisions of the Division Bench in First Appeal No. 1174 of 1968 decided on April 25/26, 1974 and First Appeal No. 251, of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004AP18; 2003(5)ALD116; 2003(6)ALT121
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the sole plaintiff in O.S.Nos. 504 and 983 of 1993 filed for specific performance of agreements of sale on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.2. The plaintiff in both the suits is the Central Bank of India Staff Co-operative Buildings Society Ltd., Vijayawada represented by its President, which was formed with the sole object of securing land for construction of houses to its members. The respondent and his mother executed two separate agreements of sale covered by O.S.No. 504 of 1993 and O.S.No. 983 of 1993 respectively on 10-12-1974. Since his mother died before filing of the suit, and as the respondent-defendant is the sole legal heir to his mother, both the suit were filed against him for specific performance of agreements of sale. Subsequently, by an order dated 30-7-2001 passed in LA.No. 723 of 2001 the Trial Court added his wife and son as defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No. 983 of 1993 which relates to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(3)Raj2411
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.3.2007 passed by learned ADJ No. 1, Kota dismissing the civil suit No. 1/2000 on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by defendant No. 6 Ijyaraj Singh son of Sh. Maharao Brajraj Singh on 15.9.2006.2. The facts leading to the present impugned order in brief are like this.3. The plaintiff Smt. Saraswati Devi, appellant herein filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant with regard to 80 bighas of land which came under ceiling and under an exemption order passed on 24.2.1990 by the State Government exempting the land in question from the provisions of the Urban Land & Ceiling Act, 1976 (since repealed in 1999) on 24.2.1990. The agreement in question is said to be oral and made on 26.2.1990 and according to the plaintiff, she paid entire consideration of Rs. 12 lacs to the defendant No. 2 Prithvi Raj Singh who was trusted assistant of Maharao Bhim Singhji, who has since expired and present defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR663; 2009(111)BomLR2093; 2009(4)MhLj693
V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is seeking following declaration;That it be declared that all proceedings/notifications and notices issued under Section 9 and 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of the land situated at bearing survey No. 34/6 Koliwali, Taluka Kalyan District Thane admeasuring 2008.00 sq.mtrs. stand abated in view of Section 4 of the Urban Land Ceiling (Repeal) Act, 1999 and the respondents are now not entitled to resort to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 in respect of the petitioners land;FACTUAL BACKDROPS:In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, few relevant introductory facts needs to be noticed at the outset.2. Petitioner herein is a holder of land admeasuring 16490 sq.mtrs. under Plot bearing No. 33, 34(6) and 35/15 at village Koliwali, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane.3. On 3rd October, 1983, the Deputy Collector & Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4518; 2004(7)KarLJ513
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The petitioner sought for quashing of Annexure-D dated 27.11.2001 communicated to the petitioner in pursuance of the letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, dated 12.9.2001.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner Sri Kuratti Veerappa, being the owner of the land RS No. 9B/2A of Sutagatti Village, Hubli Taluk, measuring about 5 acres equivalent to 20, 234.8286 Sq. Mts. submitted a declaration as required under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 showing excess land as 18, 734.2286 excluding the area of 1, 500 Sq. Mts. The Deputy Commissioner also issued notification declaring that 18, 734.2286 is the excess of land as required under Section 10(3) of the Act. At this stage, the petitioner filed WP No. 2146/91 which came to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law. At...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
J U D G M E N T1. The Hon ble the Chief JusticeSince, in all these writ appeals, which are 27 in number, a common question of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 has to be answered, they have been heard together and answered by this common judgment. All these appeals arose out of separate judgements delivered by learned single Judges in various writ petitions filed by aggrieved land owners. Almost all the writ petitions have been allowed mainly on the ground that physical possession of the lands continued with the land owners or the persons claiming through them. The factual details of each case have been discussed in the latter part of this judgment.2. The State, which is the appellant in all but three appeals, has assailed the impugned judgments rendered by the writ courts as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. S. Gomathinay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)3MLJ509
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of declaration that all the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 in respect of the land owned by the petitioner situated at Survey No. 167/1I (Old Survey No. 167/1) in Karapakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, admeasuring about 24050 sq. metres are illegal and non-est and that in any event have abated consequent upon the repeal of the Principal Act by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealing Act, 1999 and consequently direct that the petitioner is entitled to deal with the above mentioned lands owned and possessed by him as a full and absolute owner.2. The brief facts for filing of the present writ petition are as follows:The lands which form the subject matter of the present proceedings are Punja lands comprised in Survey No. 167/1I, Karapakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk. The said lands had been purchased by the petitioner from one Perum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)2GLR235
M.R. Calla, J. 1. All these 30 Civil Applications filed in respective Letters Patent Appeals have been moved on behalf of State of Gujarat, Revenue Department and the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector (ULC) seeking condonation of delay in concerned Letters Patent Appeals. Whereas common questions based on identical facts are involved, we propose to decide this group of 30 Civil Applications by this common judgment and order as under:-2. Since Civil Application No.7393/2000 in Letters Patent Appeal St.No.96/2000 arising out of Special Civil Application No.539/93 and the common order dated 10.9.99 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.1503/99 in Special Civil Application No.539/93 have been argued as the main and leading case, we may give preference to the facts of this particular case for the purpose of passing this order as was agreed by the parties. Special Civil Application No.539/93 filed by one Sankalchand P. Vachheta and pursued by his legal representatives on his expiry, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2153 OF2012 State of M.P. ...Appellant versus Ghisilal ...Respondent JUDGMENT R.SUBHASH REDDY,J.1. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellant - State of Madhya Pradesh, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed in Second Appeal No.129 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has dismissed the Second Appeal, preferred by the appellant herein confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2005 dated 23.07.2005 and the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned XIIth Civil Judge, Class - II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No.138-A/2004.2. Necessary facts, in brief, are as under:3. The agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.171 to 184, 214, 217 and 284 admeasuring 17.18 acres situated at Village Bag Sevania, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal, was recorded in the name of Late Padam Singh as a Bhoomi Swami...
Tag this Judgment!