Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.63 seconds)
Documents citing Kunjukutty Sahib Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 26 April, 1972

Sarojini Ammal Represented By Power Of ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 13 November, 1978

12. Though the State has also contended that in any event the impugned measure comes within the protection of Article 31-A based on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.W. Estates v. State of Madras upholding the decision of this Court in Subbacharior v. State of Madras (1967) 1 M.L.J. 206 we are of the view that the later decision in Kunjukutty v. State of Kerala dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 seems to take a slightly different view. But it is not necessary for us to go into that question as we are clearly of the opinion that Article 31-C which was introduced by the Constitution 25th Amendment Act. 1971 with effect from 20th April, 1971 will clearly protect the impugned measure. Article 31-C as amended says that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away, or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31 and that no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy. The proviso says that any law made by the State Legislature to have the protection of Article 31-C should have received the assent of the President. As already stated, the impugned Act has received the assent of the President. According to Article 39-C, one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy is to see that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. If for non-payment of arrears of rent, the tenants are to be evicted from the lands and the lands revert to the landlords, it will result in the concentration of the lands which are the means of production with the landlords and this will lead to the loss of production in agricultural produce which will be to the common detriment.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vivek Sehgal vs Uco Bank on 4 September, 2018

On the issue of whether the agricultural lands, offered as security, could be included in the notice for recovery of the secured loan, the Supreme Court relied on Kunjukutty Saheb v. State of Kerala8, and observed that the security interest was created in respect of several parcels of land, which were meant to be a part of a single unit i.e., the five start hotel in Goa; some parcels of land, now claimed as agricultural 8 1972 2 SCC 364 9 RR,J & KVL,J WP.Nos.16494, 18108 & 28301 of 2018 land, were apparently purchased by the debtor from agriculturists, and were entered as agricultural lands in the revenue records; the debtor had applied to the revenue authorities for conversion of these lands to non- agricultural lands, which was still pending; these lands were mortgaged in favour of the creditors under a deed dated 26.02.2010; since no security interest could be created in respect of agricultural lands, and yet it was so created, showed that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land or that the debtor had offered the land as security on this basis; while the total land, on which the Hotel was located, was of an extent of 1,82,225 sq. mtrs, an extent of 2335 sq. mtrs were used for growing vegetables, fruits, shrubs and trees for captive consumption of the hotel; there was no substantial evidence about the growing of vegetables, but what seemed to be on the land were some trees bearing curry leaves and coconut, and this amounted to 12.8% of the total area.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sehgal Motors Pvt., Ltd., vs Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction ... on 4 September, 2018

On the issue of whether the agricultural lands, offered as security, could be included in the notice for recovery of the secured loan, the Supreme Court relied on Kunjukutty Saheb v. State of Kerala8, and observed that the security interest was created in respect of several parcels of land, which were meant to be a part of a single unit i.e., the five start hotel in Goa; some parcels of land, now claimed as agricultural 8 1972 2 SCC 364 9 RR,J & KVL,J WP.Nos.16494, 18108 & 28301 of 2018 land, were apparently purchased by the debtor from agriculturists, and were entered as agricultural lands in the revenue records; the debtor had applied to the revenue authorities for conversion of these lands to non- agricultural lands, which was still pending; these lands were mortgaged in favour of the creditors under a deed dated 26.02.2010; since no security interest could be created in respect of agricultural lands, and yet it was so created, showed that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land or that the debtor had offered the land as security on this basis; while the total land, on which the Hotel was located, was of an extent of 1,82,225 sq. mtrs, an extent of 2335 sq. mtrs were used for growing vegetables, fruits, shrubs and trees for captive consumption of the hotel; there was no substantial evidence about the growing of vegetables, but what seemed to be on the land were some trees bearing curry leaves and coconut, and this amounted to 12.8% of the total area.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Sehgal Motors Pvt., Ltd., vs Uco Bank, on 4 September, 2018

On the issue of whether the agricultural lands, offered as security, could be included in the notice for recovery of the secured loan, the Supreme Court relied on Kunjukutty Saheb v. State of Kerala8, and observed that the security interest was created in respect of several parcels of land, which were meant to be a part of a single unit i.e., the five start hotel in Goa; some parcels of land, now claimed as agricultural 8 1972 2 SCC 364 9 RR,J & KVL,J WP.Nos.16494, 18108 & 28301 of 2018 land, were apparently purchased by the debtor from agriculturists, and were entered as agricultural lands in the revenue records; the debtor had applied to the revenue authorities for conversion of these lands to non- agricultural lands, which was still pending; these lands were mortgaged in favour of the creditors under a deed dated 26.02.2010; since no security interest could be created in respect of agricultural lands, and yet it was so created, showed that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land or that the debtor had offered the land as security on this basis; while the total land, on which the Hotel was located, was of an extent of 1,82,225 sq. mtrs, an extent of 2335 sq. mtrs were used for growing vegetables, fruits, shrubs and trees for captive consumption of the hotel; there was no substantial evidence about the growing of vegetables, but what seemed to be on the land were some trees bearing curry leaves and coconut, and this amounted to 12.8% of the total area.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.P.Moutheeswaran vs The District Collector on 13 September, 2019

the facts of each particular case. What is really required to be shown is the connection with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere possibility of user of land, by some possible future owner or possessor, for an agricultural purpose. It is not the mere potentiality, which will only affect its valuation as part of “assets”, but its actual condition and intended user which has to be seen for purposes of exemption from wealth tax. One of the objects of the exemption seemed to be to encourage cultivation or actual utilisation of land for agricultural purposes. If there is neither anything in its condition, nor anything in evidence to indicate the intention of its owners or possessors, so as to connect it with an agricultural purpose, the land could not be “agricultural land” for the purposes of earning an exemption under the Act. Entries in revenue records are, however, good prima facie evidence.' Similarly, in Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 364, this Court held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2019

“129. Further, the Court in Kesavananda case not only held that Article 31­B is not controlled by Article 31­A but also specifically upheld the Twenty­ninth Constitution Amendment whereby certain Kerala Land Reform Acts were included in the Ninth Schedule after 25 those Acts had been struck down by the Supreme Court in Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala, (1972) 2 SCC 364. The only logical basis for upholding the Twenty­ninth Amendment is that the Court was of the opinion that the mechanism of Article 31­B, by itself, is valid, though each time Parliament in exercise of its constituent power added a law in the Ninth Schedule, such exercise would have to be tested on the touchstone of the basic structure test. [See Shelat & Grover, JJ., paras 607 & 608(7); Hegde & Mukherjea, JJ., paras 738­43, 744(8); Ray, J., paras 1055­60, 1064; Jaganmohan Reddy, J., para 1212(4); Palekar, J., para 1333(3); Khanna, J., paras 1522, 1536, 1537(xv); Mathew, J., para 1782; Beg, J., paras 1857(6); Dwivedi, J., para 1994, 1995(4) and Chandrachud, J., paras 2136­41 and 2142(10).]
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 290 - A Mishra - Full Document

Ratna Bai vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2003

(Underlining for emphasize) But, the Bench declared Section 45A, 50A, (2), 73, 85(1) and Section 127(A) unconstitutional for want of protection under Section 31A as these provisions are not relating to agrarian reforms. The Supreme Court upheld the above view of the Full Bench in Kunjukutty Sahib and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (AIR 1972 SC 2097). The above Judgments would show that the court did not consider kudikidappu rights in Municipal areas as those cases came up before the court at that time were of kudikidappu rights with regard to rural areas and constitutionality of these provisions in Municipal areas was not considered in the above decision.
Kerala High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 9 - J B Koshy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next