Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (2.09 seconds)
Documents citing Jagannath Etc. Etc vs Authorised Officer, Land Reforms & Ors. ... on 11 October, 1971

Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 1976

201. Mere possibility of better yield in a given area than the other areas in our view cannot be emphasized as leading to unjust result or of inequality between holder and holder. In agronomics such a static approach cannot be sustained. For, much depends on the expertise, capital, availability of better seed, market, appropriate sowing and tending of crops along with availability of manure and irrigational facilities, Moreover, the legislative plan clearly is to settle the agricultural economy keeping in view several long-term objectives. Such a pattern of uniform holding is available in other States too and has been expressly upheld also by the Supreme Court: (See Indarsingh's case ) and L. Jagannath v. Authorised Officers Land Reforms, Madurai, ). We therefore do not see any vice in such a uniform fixation of the ceiling areas.
Bombay High Court Cites 165 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The Caritas India vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2019

116. Reliance of Mr. Arvindh Pandian on the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagannath v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms (supra) is misplaced. It is important to note that the observations relied upon by Mr. Arvindh Pandian were in the context of a law becoming void, because it violated part III of the Constitution of India, and were not in respect of laws becoming repugnant because of the operation of Article 254(1). The case law relied upon will have no bearing on the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 203 - Cited by 6 - S Prasad - Full Document

Natraj Chhabigrih, Sigra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 March, 1996

In L. Jagannath v. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Madurai, AIR 1972 SC 425, the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961 was declared void under the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. It was, therefore, contended that the legislation was void ab initio, inasmuch as it did not lie within the power of the State to make any law which abridged the right conferred by Part III of the Constitution, the measure was non est or still-born and any validating measure could not instil life therein: that the effect of the Act being struck down by the Supreme Court is that it had been effected from the statute book and to make any such Act operative, it was necessary not only to give it the protection against the violation of the fundamental right as was sought to be done by Art. 31-B but to get the State of Madras to re-enact the provisions there of. Rejecting such contention, the Court in para 23 at p. 435 held :
Allahabad High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 4 - A P Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next