Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC691; JT1995(8)SC331; 1995(6)SCALE625; (1996)1SCC327; [1995]Supp5SCR543
ORDERParipoornan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is a typical case where the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was improperly invoked, and High Court was pleased to exercise its jurisdiction resulting in an abuse of process.3. The appellant is the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board and represents the said 'Board' (hereinafter referred to as 'Board'). The respondents to this appeals are (1) Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh (Petitioner in the Writ Petition), (2) State of Bihar, (3) Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saraikella, District Singhbhum (the 'competent authority') and (4) Sri S.N. Pandey, Adityapur, District Singhbhum (East).4. The first respondent assailed the show-cause notice-Annexure Ext. P-4 - dated 16.12.1992 issued to him by the 3rd respondent herein under Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 in CWJC No. 82/93 High Court of Patna. By Judgment dated 10.2.1993 a Division Bench of the High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC767; I(1996)BC286(SC); 1996(1)CTC235; JT1995(8)SC305; 1995(6)SCALE589; (1996)1SCC345; [1995]Supp5SCR551; 1996(1)LC612(SC)
ORDERFaizan Uddin, J.1. The appeal by certificate granted by the High Court has been directed against the Judgment dated, March 3, 1975 delivered by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 749/1966 P.R. Sriramulu and Anr. v. The Secretary to the Government of Madras. Home Department alongwith a group of other Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals, declaring Article (1) in Schedule (1) to the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and Sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order II of the High Court Fees Rules. 1956 based on Article (1) of Schedule (1) of Madras Act No. XIV of 1955, to the invalid in so-far-as they relate to the levy of Court Fees on ad-valorem scale.2. The facts in brief leading to the aforesaid appeal are that certain lands belonging to the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein situated in Tondiarpet were acquired at the instance of Public Works Department in respect of which award No. 6 and 8 both of 1962 were made on 5.3.1962 and 10.3.1962. On a reference made under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1996)ACC536; 1996ACJ65; AIR1996SC586; 1996(1)ALT18(SC); [1997]88CompCas366(SC); (1996)112PLR202; 1995(6)SCALE629; (1996)1SCC221; [1995]Supp5SCR500
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, CJI.1. A Maruti Car with registration No. CHK-9253 was purchased in the name of Mrs. Archana Wadhwa for which the respondent, M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., had issued a comprehensive insurance policy. The premium for the insurance was paid by the appellant company in whose favour the car was transferred. The registration of the car was transferred to the appellant on 15.6.1989. On 26.6.1989, the appellant intimated the transfer of registration and asked for transfer of the insurance policy. A reminder was sent on 24.7.1989. The respondent did not reply to the two letters. On 17.9.1989 the car met with a serious accident in which the Managing Director of the appellant suffered serious injuries and his sister died. On 11.10.1989 the appellant asked for the assessment of the damage as the car was a total loss. The respondent did not respond. A reminder dated 26.12.1989 met the same fate. The appellant got a notice issued to which the respondent replied that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC498; 1995(6)SCALE697a; (1996)1SCC310; [1995]Supp5SCR532
ORDER1. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on March 8, 1957 for planned development of Delhi. The lands acquired for the development are 8.40 acres out of which the land Appellants are small in extent. In Justice A.S. Bhandari v. Union of India, (LPA No. 81 of 1979) decided on May 1, 1980, the Division Bench of the High Court determined the market-value at Rs. 10 per square yard, i.e., Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. The appellant, aggrieved by that, filed this appeal. The only question is whether it is a fit case to enhance the compensation to Rs. 12/- per square yard, i.e., Rs. 12,000/- per bigha as claimed by the appellant. Sri Juneja, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the lands in Justice Bhandari's case are brick-kiln land while the lands of appellant are agricultural lands. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to higher compensation. It is further contended that the notification under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2994; JT1995(9)SC301; 1995(7)SCALE278; (1996)1SCC609; [1995]Supp5SCR520
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.2. The facts in C.A. Nos. 5337-41 of 1990 are sufficient for disposal of all these appeals.3. The respondents had entered into an agreement of sale on March 4, 1989, to purchase from the vendors, Virender Singh and Rupinder Singh, a portion of house (Kothi No. 519) situated in Model Town, Jallandhar, of an extent of 20 marlas for a consideration valued at Rs. 9,700 per marla and they appear to have paid as earnest money of Rs. 95.000. The sale deed was required to be executed and registered before November 30, 1989. Few days prior to the aforesaid date the instrument appears to have been valued at Rs. 50,000 and stamp duty was paid and presented for the same. The Sub-Registrar. Jallandhar, opined that prevailing market value was not less than Rs. 15,000 per marla and, on that basis, he required the vendee to revise the instrument and fix the consideration for that purpose of stamp duty and registration charges on the revised valuation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(1)SC558; 1995(6)SCALE697; (1996)1SCC295; [1995]Supp5SCR538
ORDER1. In this case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition acquiring a large extent of land of 966 bighas was published on October 24, 1961. Ultimately, the High Court granted @ Rs. 12 per sq. yd. i.e., Rs. 12,000 per bigha. The High Court followed the decision in Sanwalia and Ors. v. Union of India. It is stated by Mr. P.P. Juneja, learned Counsel for the appellants, that the notification of the lands covered in the Sanwalia' case is July 13, 1959. Since the notification of the appellants' land is of October 19, 1961, they are entitled to higher compensation due to lapse of time. We find it very difficult to accept the contention. The High Court has awarded the uniform rate to all the lands at Rs. 12,000 per bigha, i.e., Rs. 12 per sq. yd. We do not find any much justification to distinguish the other cases from that of the appellants to grant enhanced compensation. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(7)SCALE137; (1996)7SCC210; [1995]Supp5SCR540
ORDERC.A. No. 241/851. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published in the Union Gazette on February 21, 1973. The Collector in his award dated May 25, 1974 determined the . compensation @ Rs. 4,280 per Bigha rounded to Rs. 50 per sq. yd. The Additional Judge by his award and decree dated August 8, 1978, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,420 per bigha. The High Court further enhanced it in appeal by judgment and decree dated July 10, 1984 to Rs. 12,000 per bigha. Still dissatisfied therewith, the Appellants filed this appeal by special leave.2. Shri P.P. Juneja, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that this Court in Gokal v. State of Haryana : AIR1992SC150 had taken judicial notice of constant rise in the prices and fixed the market value at different rates depending upon the year of acquisition. The appellants' lands are also situated within the master plan of the Delhi Development Authority. They arc also ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2153; JT1995(9)SC103; 1995(6)SCALE755; (1996)1SCC538; [1995]Supp5SCR526
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court dated August 10, 1994 made in C.R. No. 2836/94 dismissing the revision filed by the State on 5.2.1990. When the respondents had gone to the High Court by way or writ petition, it had given liberty to the respondents to file an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was accordingly filed before the Additional District Judge at Gurdaspur. In C.A. No. 11/19 of 1991 by order dated March 21, 1991, the District Judge held that once the Sub-Registrar had registered the document, he became functus officio and, therefore, he has no power to make a reference to the Collector for collecting the deficit stamp duty and registration charges. When this was questioned, as stated earlier, the High Court rejected the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave.3. The facts would lie in short compass. The sale deed No. 3033 was executed in favour of the respondents for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000 in re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC583; (1996)98BOMLR766; JT1995(8)SC510; 1995(6)SCALE555; (1996)1SCC277; [1995]Supp5SCR491
ORDERSujata v. Manohar, J.1. Delay condoned in view of the statements made in the application for condonation of delay.2. Leave granted.3. These appeals relate to proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'). The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal held that out of the total land belonging to the family of the appellant the surplus lands held were 91.02 acres. The dispute in these appeals is confined to certain lands held by the appellant which he had purchased from one Kisana, a tribal under a registered sale-deed dated 31.1.1958.4. The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Restoration Act') came into force w.e.f. 1st of November, 1975. Section 3 of the Restoration Act provides as follows :Section 3(1) where due to transfer-(a) the land of a Tribal-transferor is held by a non-Tribal transferee or(b). . .and the land so transferred is in posse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC693; 1996(1)BLJR401; JT1995(8)SC357; 1995(6)SCALE573; (1995)6SCC765; [1995]Supp5SCR511; 1996(1)LC66(SC); (1996)1UPLBEC122
ORDERAhmadi, CJ.1. Two questions are raised in this appeal, namely, (i) the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and (ii) the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the pension admissible to the respondent as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal had to be determined under Part I of the First Scheduled to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The brief facts which we are required notice run as follows :The first respondent was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Calcutta on 13th January, 1978 and she retired as such with effect from 16th February, 1989. Soon thereafter on 3rd March, 1989 she was appointed a Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal which post she relinquished on 16th February, 1992 on retirement. Admittedly she was drawing pension on retirement as High Court Judge. For the period between 3rd March, 1989 and 16th February, 1992 she served as the Vice-Chairman and was entitled to pension. She contend...
Tag this Judgment!