Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(6)ALD75
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner claims to be absolute owner of the land admeasuring about Acs.21.90 gts. comprised in Sy.Nos. 123 to 127, 130, 132, 133, 136 and 137 situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He assets that they are agricultural dry and wet lands which are being cultivated till now. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the ULC' Act for brevity), the petitioner filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act before the second respondent claiming the lands to be agricultural lands and, therefore, they cannot be declared as vacant lands under the ULC Act. After processing the declaration, the second respondent issued a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act on 28-9-1977 accepting the claim of the petitioner in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos. 123 to 127, 132, 133 and 137 to an extent of Acs.10.20 gts. which stood excluded from cultivation as per Section 2(0) of the ULC Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2004Ori58
ORDER1. In this writ petition filed by the judgment-debtor, the order of the District Court in revision rejecting the objection raised by the judgment-debtor to the executability of the decree is challenged. Since what is challenged is the decision of the Executing Court as modified by the Revisional Court, this proceeding can be understood only as one initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot apply and a writ of certiorari cannot issue to a Civil Court as has been held by the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1.2. One Moti Dei, mother of the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of an extent of land in favour of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 said to be the sons of her brother. The land agreed to be transferred was a piece of urban land for the consideration referred to in the agreement. Before entering into that agreement Moti Dei had filed a return under Section 6(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)221; JT1996(2)SC289; 1996(4)KarLJ630; 1996(2)SCALE254; (1996)2SCC579; [1996]1SCR878; 1996(1)LC648(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal has come up on reference dated November 28, 1995 to this Bench for considering the question of law raised in this case.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned single judge of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant who is the owner of vacant land in Kanpur Urban agglomeration and disputes the computation of ceiling. Three plots of land one bearing plot No. 113/41 Swarup Nagar to the extent of 501.64 sq. meters on which he had built up dwelling unit over 246.48 sq. meters; plot No. 123/430 to the extent of 2675.20 sq. meters situated in Fazalpur, Kanpur over which he had constructed factory admeasuring 898,90 sq. meters; and a plot No. 123/35 in a total extent of 3251.10 sq. meters on which he had construction over 1905.75 sq. meters of the land occupied by the factory belong to the appellant. On a statement filed by the appellant under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1546; 2007(6)ALD86(SC); 2007(3)AWC2538(SC); JT2007(4)SC186; (2007)3MLJ784(SC); 2007(4)SCALE88; (2007)4SCC221
C.K. Thakker, J.1. All these appeals have been preferred by the appellants against common judgment and order passed in WAMP No. 1879 of 2001 in W.A. No. 109 of 1997, WAMP No. 1880 of 2001 in W.A. No. 292 of 1998 and Contempt Case No. 1008 of 2001. By the said order, the High Court recalled common judgment and order passed on April 27, 2000 in Writ Appeal Nos. 109 of 1997 and 292 of 1998. A direction was also issued to the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') to complete proceedings within the stipulated period.2. The case has a long and checkered history starting from early seventies of the last century. Appellants herein are the owners of land bearing Survey Nos. 3/1, 3/2 and 4 admeasuring 18 acres, 39 cents of Village Kancharapalem, District Visakhapatnam. It was their case that Visakhapatnam Port Trust ('Port Trust' for short) wanted to acquire land for public purpose, namely, for construction of quarters ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1989Guj129; (1989)1GLR586
M. Airmaidi, J. 1. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, No. 33 of 1976, thereinafter Act) was, enacted to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, for regulating the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and to bring about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good. It was made applicable to the State of Gujarat and came into force at once. The definitions of the various terms and expressions used in the Act are found in S. 2 of the Act. Section 3 mandates that no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land, in excess of the ceiling limit, in the territories to which the Act applies on and from the commencement of the Act unless otherwise provided. The expres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1978Guj140; (1978)0GLR920
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. The Plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for obtaining decree for specific performance of the contract for sale Exh. 116 dated 27th May 1963. Under that agreement of sale, the land admeasuring 3500 sq. vds. out of S. No. 235 of Rajpur-Hirpur in the City of Ahmedabad was agreed to be sold by defendant No. 8 to the Plaintiff. The total area of S. No. 235 was 3 acres 25 gunthas or 18045 sq. Vds. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for damages in the sum of Rs. 57085/-. The land in question originally belonged to one Sankalchand Manilal Mukhi who died on 14th July 1963. He had executed an agreement of sale in respect of 6000 sq. Yds. of land out of this survey number in favour of defendant No. 8 on 16th Aug. 1962. Defendant No. 8 in his turn executed in favour of the plaintiff the said agreement in respect of 3500 sq. Vds. of land. After the expiry of the owner of the land, some of his heirs refused to execute the direct sale deed in f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1996Guj87; (1996)1GLR320
ORDERM.R. Calla, J. 1. The petitioner in each of these three matters is the Navsarjan Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd. It had purchased lands in question in a public auction held by Special Recovery Officer under three different sales certificates and, therefore, three Special Civil Applications have been filed. These three Special Civil Applications are based on common facts giving rise to common questions of law and, therefore, all these three matters are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The land in question is situated in village Anjana. Taluka Choryasi, the details of which have been set out in para 4.2 of the Special Civil Application No. 85 of 1993 and for the sake of brevity, reference is made to the pleadings in Special Civil Application No. 85 of 1993 only. The sale Certificates, in pursuance of the auction sale, were issued on 28-5-1981 and on that basis the same of the petitioner-Society was entered in the record of rights as per the document Annexure 'A' encl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1994Guj130; (1995)2GLR1063
ORDERA.N. Divecha, J.1. The main question arising Sri all these petitions is common and it is to the effect as to what conditions can be imposed by the Competent Authority while approving the Scheme under Section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief). Since common questions of law and fact arise in all these four petitions, I have thought it fit to dispose of all these four petitions by this common judgment of mine. 2. The facts giving rise to these petitions move in a narrow compass. Each petitioner applied for permission under Section 21(1) of the Act in the prescribed form. By his order passed on 30th October 1979 in each case, respondent No. 1 granted such permission to each petitioner. Its copy is at Annexure-A to each petition. It was accompanied by certain conditions separately annexed therewith. Condition No. 3 thereof inter alia required the petitioner in each petition to commence construction within one year from the date of the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1994Bom358; 1994(3)BomCR461; (1994)96BOMLR530
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-3-1982 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Suit No. 127 of 1966. The appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff as the trial Court has decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff only in part and not in its entirety. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 died. The heirs of original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are brought on record of the suit and are impleaded as the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal. The respondent No. 3 in the appeal was original defendant No. 3 in the said suit. The respondent No. 3 claims to be subsequent transferee for value without notice. The respondent No. 3 has filed cross-objections as permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therespondents Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the heirs and legal representatives of original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any objections against the findings recorded by the trial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1988Bom366; 1988(2)BomCR464; (1988)90BOMLR249
Sawant, J.1. These are two writ petitions which raise some common points, while other points are exclusive to writ petit ion No. 1081 of 1984. We will, therefore, take the facts from Writ Petition No. 1081 of 1984.2. In Writ Petition No. 1081 of 1984 the1st petitioner is the mother, the 2nd petitioneris her sort, and the 3rd petitioner is her marrieddaughter. The late Sherier Irani, the husbandof petitioner 1 and the father of petitioners 2and 3 possessed three pieces of property,namely: .(1) a building with the land under it and also the vacant land around, situated at GLR Survey No. 709 (Bungalow No. 8, Prince of Wales Drive), Admeasuring 9,145.88 square metres as a lessee under a regular lease; (2) a building with the land under it andalso the vacant land around it, situated atGLR survey No. 158 (Bungalow No. 8, Princeof Wales Road admeasuring 8,175 squaremetres as a grantee under the Old Granttenure; and (3) a building with the land under it as well as the vacant land around it, s...
Tag this Judgment!