Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(5)SCALE182; 1995Supp(3)SCC538; [1995]Supp3SCR152
ORDER1. The short point in this appeal, which was not, argued in the High Court, is whether the appellant is entitled to retain the land to the extent of 2.18 acres out of Survey Nos. 41/1 and 41/2. The Collector himself had written a letter on December 7, 1985 to the Secretary to the Government stating that a portion of the land of plot Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 measuring 2.18 acres out of total 2.40 acres adjoining the General Manager, U.P. State Sugar Corporation's residence, which is the subject matter of the acquisition, was yet to be developed. Leaving apart mere 3 metres of land around General Manager's residence would be highly inconvenient. The matter was examined in the meeting of the District Officer Shri Autul Kumar Gupta; the General Manger of the appellant, and the Executive Engineer of the respondents-Avam Evam Vikas Parishad ('Parishad', for short). It was decided in the sit meeting that in exchange of the acquired land, 2.18 acres of land, the appellant would give an extent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 81(1996)CLT161(SC); JT1995(6)SC624; 1995(5)SCALE188; (1995)5SCC583; [1995]Supp3SCR139; 1995(2)LC816(SC)
ORDER1. Though notice has been served on the respondents, no one has appeared in person or through counsel.2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, 'the Act'] was published on July 16, 1970 acquiring Ac. 2.02 dec. of land in Survey Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 situated at village Pubakhand for the purpose of construction of the Tahasil office building and staff quarters at Niali. Along with the said notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The declare lion under Section 6 of the Act was published on April 27, 1972. Notice under Sections 9 and 10 was published in the locality in December, 1975 and possession of the land was taken on December 16, 1976. Sometime in 1977 O.J.C. No. 43 of 1977 was filed questioning the validity of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Similarly, some othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC109; JT1995(6)SC318; 1996(1)KLT36(SC); (1996)1MLJ76(SC); 1995(5)SCALE111; (1995)6SCC122; [1995]Supp3SCR131; 1995(2)LC809(SC)
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is filed against the order dated November 16, 1994 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 547 of 1994. One V.S. Annama, sister of the appellant was alleged to have executed a will on September 15, 1976, and said to have bequeathed her properties to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant is one of her brothers. Respondent No. 1 is the sister and the second respondent is the son of the first respondent. On sudden demise of Annamma, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed L.A.O.P. No. 143 of 1980 in the District Court, Ernakulam under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of deceased Annamma and annexed the copy of the will thereto.3. The appellant had objected to the grant of letters of administration disputing the validity and genuineness of the will and also for failure to implead necessary and proper parties therein. One of the test...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC223; (1996)98BOMLR1010; JT1995(6)SC654; 1995(5)SCALE196; (1995)6SCC58; [1995]Supp3SCR147
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court at Bombay in Special Civil Application No. 277 of 1972 dated 8th September, 1977. The respondent-landlord filed Civil Suit No. 10/68 in the Court of Civil Judge, J.D. at Akkalkot. Since the appellant raised plea of oral tenancy for the year 1968-69, the Civil Court referred the issue : 'Does the defendant prove tenancy over the suit land thereon?' to the Tehsildar who in his proceedings held that in respect of Survey No. 3 to the extent of 16 acres 26 Gunthas situated in Mirajgi village belongs to the respondent and the appellant had not proved oral tenancy. Thereon, the appellant carries the matter in appeal to the Special Deputy Collector, Tenancy Appeals, Sholapur, who held that oral tenancy was established. Even otherwise, the appellant is a deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (for short, 'Tenancy Act'). On revision, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune confirmed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC523; 1995(5)SCALE59; (1995)5SCC753; [1995]Supp3SCR119
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Leave granted.2. These are appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against judgments and orders of the Allahabad High Court dated 9th March 1979 and 11th October, 1979, and orders that followed the same. The High Court allowed writ petitions filed by the respondents who are manufacturers of Indian made foreign liquor, and quashed the orders impugned demanding excise duty from them.3. The High Court in the judgment dated 11th October, 1979, categorised the demands into four groups. In Group 'A' the demands for excise duty were on the wastage of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) which was exported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. Group 'B' related to demands made for excise duty on wastage, during transportation in containers, of high strength spirit, of 80 to 85%, from distillery to warehouse. Group 'C' related to the demand of excise duty on obscuration. Group 'D' related to excise duty sought to be levied on pipeline wastage. The judgment of the High Court d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(5)SCALE189; (1995)5SCC584; [1995]Supp3SCR144
ORDER1. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') was published on October 6, 1975 acquiring Ac.7.14 cents of land near Bangalore for Agriculture University. Pursuant to the notice under Sections 9 and 10, the respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the agriculture land to the extent of Ac.5.20 cents, @ Rs. 12,000/- per acre and for Ac.1.34, he awarded @ Rs. 1,000/- per acre, treating the same as phot-kharab land. On reference under Section 18, the Court relying upon a sale deed, Ext. P6 dated February 24, 1975 to an extent of Ac. 1.8 cents sold at Rs. 50,000/- per acre which was purchased for setting up of a factory, awarded Rs. 42,500/- per acre. Being dissatisfied, the appellant preferred appeal before the High Court, who by its impugned judgment dated September 7, 1979 confirmed the same, against which these appeals by special leave have been filed.2. Tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC105; JT1995(6)SC240; 1995(5)SCALE54; 1995Supp(3)SCC523
N.P. Singh, J.1.This appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court by which the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs - respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') was allowed. The High Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and restored that of the Trial Court.2. The respondents filed the suit in question for partition of the land specified in the plaint on 10.4.1974. A petition under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC was also filed. The preliminary decree for partition was passed on 1.6.1974. During the preparation of the final decree certain objections were filed, one of them being that the land having vested in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') no preliminary decree could have been passed for partition of the same. The Trial Court passed an order on 14.4.1978 saying that as the suit lands which were sought to be partitioned had vested in the Gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR826]; JT1995(6)SC614; (1996)ILLJ674SC; 1995(5)SCALE86; 1995Supp(3)SCC592; [1995]Supp3SCR108
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The High Court has set aside the imposition of the penalty on the respondents on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondents during the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. It is also found that no one was examined to prove the case of the State It would be desirable that an officer who is acquainted with the records may also be examined to prove the documentary evidence and opportunity may be given to the respondents to cross-examine the witness or produce any evidence in rebuttal. Thereafter, inquiry will be conducted, the report will be given and copy thereof will be supplied to the respondents.3. The order of the High Court in accordingly set aside. The Inquiry Officer, if he is still in service is directed to conduct and complete the inquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this Order. If he is not in service, the State is directed to appoint another Inquiry Officer afre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(5)SCALE234; (1995)6SCC544; [1995]Supp3SCR117
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Notice was issued with a view to impress upon the parties to settle the dispute amicably and learned Counsel for the respondents in fairness submitted that he is not informed about the settlement and, therefore, he is unable it impress upon them to enter into any compromise.3. Mr. A.S. Bhasme, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended on merits that the trial court was wrong in its conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the land. We do not want to go into the controversy as to who is in possession of the land. It is true that the trial court on prima facie evidence found that the appellant was in possession of the land. It was further found that irreparable injury would be caused to him ad interim injunction is granted. On appeal, the District Judge reappreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the land. High Court did not interfere on being approached under Article 227.4. At this stage, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(5)SCALE190; 1995Supp(3)SCC539; [1995]Supp3SCR113
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Though the respondents have been served, they did not appear in appeals arising out of SLPs 3672/95 and 3753/95 either in person or through counsel. Mr. Ranbir Yadav is appearing for respondent, Banwari Lal in appeal arising out of SLP No. 3750/95. We have heard the counsel on both sides. On the facts and circumstances, we think that the interests of justice will be served and we so direct the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court within a period of two months from today. On the deposit so made, the respondents will be at liberty to withdraw half the amount without security and the balance half on furnishing the security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court. The deposits and withdrawal will be subject to the result in the appeals now pending in the High Court. In default of the deposit as stated above, the stay shall stand vacated. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!