Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Padmini Kunwar Ju Sahiba vs State Of Vindhya Pradesh.(Now Madhya ... on 21 February, 1961

Smt. Dhanbai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 20 July, 1978

1. By this Judgment the connected First Appeal No. 88/1972 (Smt. Dinoobai v. State of M. P.) is also disposed of as identical questions arise in both these appeals. Though these 2 appeals arise out of 2 different suits by 2 sisters but the suits were consolidated and common judgment has been passed. These suits are for declaration under Section 11 (5) of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to have the orders passed by the competent authority set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Babu Pilassery, S/O. Subramanian And A. ... vs Government Of Kerala, Represented By ... on 25 March, 2003

6. Padmini v. State (1999 (3) KLT 465) cited by the respondents is a decision by a Bench of equal strength; but later in point of time and even for that reason it deserves more weight. It was contended there that in the absence of any Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act the owners had a right to use the land for their own purposes; that the purpose of Section 4(1) Notification is to give public notice of the proposal to acquire land and to give warning that anyone who deals with that land subsequent to the Notification would do so at his own risk, that the object of declaration under Section 6 is to intimate the decision of the appropriate Government that the particular land is needed for particular public purpose; and that the Government has to be satisfied initially that the land is needed for a public purpose before issuing such a declaration. With regard to the facts of the case and the contention that until the Notification under Section 4(1) was issued the Municipality cannot deny issuance of building permit applied for by the land owner it was further mentioned that on the date when the appellant submitted application for permission to construct residential building there was no Notification under Section 4(1) and such being the position the Municipality was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the land was proposed to be acquired. It was made clear that the decision of the Government would become effective and valid only when Notification is published in the Official Gazette and until then proceedings for acquisition cannot be said to have been initiated and as such the land owner could use it in his own way. In the present case two Notifications had been issued earlier; but both had lapsed and as certified i Ext.R8(a) dated 21.3.1996 no acquisition proceedings were alive on that date. It was therefore that the petitioner purchased the property through 3 sale deeds between 1.4.1986 and 12.4.1996. The new proposal for acquisition of only 1.34 Acres is also in conformity with Exts.P1 and P2 judgments and takes into account the fact that the 8th Respondent has already started construction in the 66 cents armed with duly granted sanction issued before any new notification was issued.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M R Nair - Full Document

K.Vidyadhar Shenoy vs The Secretary on 17 April, 2013

The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 1.56 cents of land comprised in T.S.No.312 of Block 8 of Ward 16 of Thiruvangad amsom desom in Thalassery Municipality filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for building permit as per Ext.P4. It is stated therein that the western side of the property in question lies within the area covered by the scheme 'Development for Tellicherry Town Part Variation, 2007 and in that area, there is a proposal to widen the road to an extent of 20 metres. It is also stated therein that leaving such a width would cause shortfall in the requisite set back of 3 metres on the front side and therefore, his application for building permit could not be considered. The contention of the petitioner is that existence of a proposal for road widening could not be assigned as a reason for rejecting an application for building permit W.P.(C).14120/14 2 in the light of the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465].
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Maharani Padmini Kunwar Ba Sahiba Of ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 9 November, 1970

1. This is a petition by Maharani Padmini Kun-war Ba Sahiba, who had been granted a lamberdari lease for 30 years in 1945. Under the Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (Vindhya Pradesh Act No. XI of 1952) these rights were resumed on the 1st of January, 1954. The contention of the petitioner was that these rights were not Jagir rights and, therefore, could not be resumed under that Act. There was litigation about it and ultimately the Supreme Court by its judgment dated the 21st February, 1961 reported in S. Padmini Kunwar Ju Sahiba v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh (now Madhya Pradesh), AIR 1961 SC 1204, allowed the contention raised by the petitioner. As a result of this decision the property was returned to the petitioner on the 30th April, 1961. Thereafter a new Act, Madhya Pradesh Act No. 41 of 1965 (The Madhya Pradesh Swatwa-dhartk Adhikar Sampatti (Vindhya Pradesh Kshetra) Adhiniyam, 1965) was passed by the Legislature of the State. By this Act certain other proprietary rights including the rights of lamberdari lessees were taken over. Section 2(b) defined "proprietor" and included within Clause (ii) "any person who holds village or part thereof under a lamberdari lease." Section 4 of this Act applied the provisions of Act No. XI of 1952 for the purposes of resumption of these rights. Section 4 is as follows:--
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next