Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Pyare vs The Financial Commissioner And Others on 25 September, 2001

Smt. Renu Gupta And Anr. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 27 March, 2003

14. The reading of the judgment in Pyare's case (supra) itself makes it clear mat it is when the possession of the land is taken over, actual or symbolic, that the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. It is only at that stage that it can be said that the revenue authorities ceased to have jurisdiction under the DLR Act. It has been said in many words in the said judgment.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Master Vijender Singh (Minor) Through ... vs Shri Ram Chander And Ors. on 2 August, 2002

It was held in the case of Pyare v. Financial Commissioner and Ors., , that under Section 67(b) of the Act, interest of a Bhoomidar automatically gets extinguished when the land comprised in his holdings is acquired under any law such as Land Acquisition Act or any other law relating to the acquisition of land and no civil suit for declaration and claiming any right in the compensation amount is maintainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - S Aggarwal - Full Document

Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi, Land And Building ... vs Smt. Poonam Gupta W/O Shri Praveen Gupta ... on 5 December, 2005

16. Learned counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on Pyare v. Financial Commissioner and Ors., . We find that this decision deals with extinguishment of the rights of a land owner under Section 67 of the DLR Act. Moreover, in that case, no argument was raised to the effect that mere issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act does not amount to acquiring the land. The Division Bench proceeded on the basis, in the absence of any argument to the contrary, that when a notification is issued under Section 4 of the LA Act, the notified land is Page 2401 acquired and it was on this basis that it was held that the land has been acquired within the meaning of Section 67(b) of the DLR Act. In the appeals before us, a specific contention has been urged that land is not acquired until its possession is taken by the appropriate Government and we are of the view that this contention must be upheld. The decision of the Division Bench has to be confined to the facts of that case only.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 25 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Smt. Bala Devi vs Sh. Chhotu Ram & Ors. on 20 March, 2013

12. The counsel for the plaintiff has also invited attention to Pyare Vs. The Financial Commissioner 94 (2001) DLT 348 to contend that the reliance by the defendant No.1 on Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is misconceived as on acquisition, the said Act ceased to apply to the said land. However as aforesaid, even if we are to consider the matter on the anvil of the Hindu Succession Act, the premise on which the suit is based, of the child acquiring right in the property inherited by the father from his / her own father, is misconceived.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

As 'Pyare vs . Financial Commissioner' Reported In ... on 27 April, 2013

This writ petition was disposed off with directions to the revenue authorities to inspect the land physically and prepare the report in that regard, but by withdrawing the appeal against the Judgment of civil court, the findings of civil court that IP No.2 is in possession of the land in question remains unchallenged. Otherwise also, the record of Nehri Khasra Girdawri proved on record by IP No.2 shows that he is in cultivatory possession of the land in question. Further, IP No.2 filed proceedings u/s 85 of DLR Act which were not concluded because of acquisition proceedings. Ld. Counsel for IP No.2 in this regard has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case titled as 'Pyare Vs. Financial Commissioner' reported in 94 (2001) DLT 348. Ld. Counsel for IP No.2 submits that once the land is acquired, it is for this court to decide the rights and interests of the parties post acquisition.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Jagdish Singh S/O Sh. Sahi Ram vs Smt. Savitri W/O Sh. Partap Singh on 9 September, 2011

In Pyare's case (Supra) while the proceedings under Section 85 of Delhi Land Reforms Act filed by the petitioner therein were pending, before the Revenue Assistant, for being declared as Bhumidhar of the land, the land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act and the Revenue Assistant dismissed the application on the ground that land stood acquired and the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to try the application. The RCA No.02/11 Page13/16 order passed by the Revenue Assistant was upheld in appeal before the Additional Collector. The petitioner then approached the Financial Commissioner by way of Second Appeal, but the second appeal was also dismissed when the Financial commissioner was of the view that the question relating to Bhumdhari rights was outside the purview of the Revenue Court because of the acquisition of the land.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Gaon Sabha on 31 August, 2015

21.The Gaon Sabha has argued that bhumidari rights have not been LAC-19B/2015 Page No.11/13 declared in favour of IP No. 2 by concerned revenue authorities. The said arguments is not tenable. If there is any dispute then there is no need to invoke the jurisdiction of revenue officers under DLR Act if land has already been acquired as settled in judgment titled M/s Sikri Brothers Vs. Union of India, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 56 and titled Pyare Vs. Financial Commissioner 1994 (2001) DLT 348 (DV). It is settled that Court of ADJ has to determine the question.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Gaon Sabha on 31 August, 2015

19.The Gaon Sabha has argued that bhumidari rights have not been declared in favour of IP No. 2 by concerned revenue authorities. Hence, claim of IP No. 2 be rejected. The said arguments is not tenable. If there is any dispute then there is no need to invoke the jurisdiction of revenue officers under DLR Act if land has already been acquired as settled in judgment titled M/s Sikri Brothers Vs. Union of India, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 56 and titled Pyare Vs. Financial Commissioner 1994 (2001) DLT 348 (DV). It is settled that Court of ADJ has to determine the question.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Gaon Sabha on 31 August, 2015

20.The Gaon Sabha has argued that bhumidari rights have not been declared in favour of IP No. 2 by concerned revenue authorities. The LAC-18B/2015 Page No.11/13 said arguments is not tenable. If there is any dispute then there is no need to invoke the jurisdiction of revenue officers under DLR Act if land has already been acquired as settled in judgment titled M/s Sikri Brothers Vs. Union of India, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 56 and titled Pyare Vs. Financial Commissioner 1994 (2001) DLT 348 (DV). It is settled that Court of ADJ has to determine the question.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next