Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.06 seconds)
Documents citing Dharam Pal And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 25 September, 2001

Megh Raj And Ors. vs Manphool Singh And Ors. on 28 January, 2008

24. Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 605 by relying upon the aforementioned judgment and after considering the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) and 12(3) of the Haryana Act, held that proceedings which have attained finality under the Punjab Act, can not be reopened by taking benefit of the Haryana Act. Section 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act, would not, therefore, entitle a land owner to pray for reopening of an order of surplus area, passed under the Punjab Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - R Bhalla - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Smt. Ram Kali Etc on 13 February, 2009

" A Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 37: 2002(1) PLJ 188 by relying upon the aforementioned judgment and after considering the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) and 12(3) of the Haryana Act, held that proceedings which have attained finality under the Punjab Act, cannot be reopened by taking benefit of the LPA No.389 of 2003 -10- Haryana Act. Section 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act, would not, therefore, entitle a land owner to pray for reopening of an order of surplus area, passed under the Punjab Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Uttam Chand And Others vs Financnial Commissioner on 22 April, 2009

In Dharam Pal's case (supra), this Court has viewed that surplus area proceedings can not be reopened by taking benefit of the provisions of Ceiling Act, claiming that the land owner was entitled to re-evaluation of the surplus area, though the proceedings have become final under the Tenures Act with regard to declaration of surplus area. It is further held that simply because surplus land declared under the Tenures Act was not utilized and remained in possession of the land owner would not make any difference. As held in this case, land declared surplus under the Tenures Act stood vested in the State under Section 12(3) and non utilisation of the surplus land till the date of vesting (23.12.1972) would be of no consequences and would make no difference.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document

Kaushalya Devi vs State Of Haryana & Others on 5 May, 2009

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents would refer to Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Writ Petition No.3911 of 1983 :7 : 2002(1) PLJ 188 to say that the land declared surplus under the Punjab Act stood vested in the State under Section 12(3) and non- utilisation of the surplus land till date of vesting is of no consequence and makes no difference. It is further held that land once declared surplus under the Act, even if remained unutilised, would be deemed to have vested in State or acquired for a public purpose.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document
1