Dr Preeti Tiwari vs State on 18 September, 2025
PT Vs. State & others. Page No. 6 of 6.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 91 (0.78 seconds)Documents citing
Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 18 January, 2000
S. Sivaparamam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 July, 2007
7. On the facts which I have narrated earlier, on going through the files, even though a notification under section 11(3) of the Principal Act was given on 18.6.1998 about the deemed possession, it is nowhere in the files seen that the respondents have paid compensation or any amount to the petitioners or the vendor of the petitioners, viz., previous owner. Therefore, it is clear that the order passed by the authority contemplated under the Principal Act in declaring excess land in respect of the property in dispute cannot be stated to have become final and therefore the proceedings under the Principal Act are deemed to have abated. It was held by the Supreme Court in Pt.Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P.(AIR 2000 SC 3415) that in cases where it is proved that the possession under the Principal Act had not been taken over and there is nothing on record to indicate that the State has taken possession over the surplus land, the said proceedings should be deemed to be abated under section 4 of the repealing Act 1999.
Lalla And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 26 September, 2014
In Pt. Madan Swarup Shrotiya, Public Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. and others J.T. 2000(3) S.C./391 it has been held by the Supreme Court that if possession has been taken over by the State Government then the proceedings under the Act will not abate but if the possession has not been taken over the proceedings shall abate. We make it clear that the word possession means actual physical possession. Hence if actual physical possession has been taken over the proceedings shall not abate otherwise they will abate.
Chandrma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. Urban Land ... on 27 April, 2011
In Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande(supra) the Supreme Court, after considering Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust (supra); Ghasitey Lal Sahu and anr vs. Competent Authority, (2004) 13 SCC 452; and Mukarram Ali Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors (2007) 11 SCC 90, held in para-32 as quoted above, that in the facts of that case, the land was declared as surplus in 1976, and acquired in 1979, the appellant had not stated anywhere in the pleadings as to whether any amount/compensation was received or accepted by her and whether any appeal was filed. The Supreme Court held that the land in dispute will be subjected to the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act w.e.f. 17.5.1976, i.e. the date on which the suit land had come within the limits of Municipal Corporation.
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rent Controlling Authority And Anr. on 16 September, 2005
16. The Apex Court in Pt. Madanswaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P., , has held that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of the Act, before any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall abate. The facts of this case are distinguishable. However, in my opinion, as discussed above, the matter can not be remitted back as per Section 4 of the Repeal Act.
Haripriya Rayaningar vs The Secretary To Government on 11 November, 2010
"31. Undoubtedly, the Act, 1976, stood repealed by the Act 1999. However, it has no bearing on this case for the reason that proceeding pending in any Court relating to the Act, 1976, stood abated, provided the possession of the land had not been taken from the owner. Therefore, in a case, where the possession has been taken, the repeal of the Act would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land. [Vide Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 325; Ghasitey Lal Sahu and Anr. v. Competent Authority (2004) 13 SCC 452; and Mukarram Ali Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 90].
S. Sivaparamam, P. Saraswathi And P. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its ... on 18 July, 2007
7. On the facts which I have narrated earlier, on going through the files, even though a notification under Section 11(3) of the Principal Act was given on 18.6.1998 about the deemed possession, it is nowhere in the files seen that the respondents have paid compensation or any amount to the petitioners or the vendor of the petitioners, viz., previous owner. Therefore, it is clear that the order passed by the authority contemplated under the Principal Act in declaring excess land in respect of the property in dispute cannot be stated to have become final and therefore the proceedings under the Principal Act are deemed to have abated. It was held by the Supreme Court in Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. that in cases where it is proved that the possession under the Principal Act had not been taken over and there is nothing on record to indicate that the State has taken possession over the surplus land, the said proceedings should be deemed to be abated under Section 4 of the repealing Act 1999.
Daulat Ram Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024
In such circumstances, when taking possession of the
disputed lands by the respondents on or before 17.02.2000, is not proved
and it is also not proved that compensation regarding the disputed lands
was ever paid to the appellants by virtue of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal
Act, the proceeding initiated under the Principle Act abated as held in Pt.
Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust (Supra). Learned
First Appellate Court in reversing the findings of the learned trial Court
with respect to exemption of the disputed lands from the clutches of the
the Principle Act has committed serious error of law and fact. Therefore,
judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court cannot
be sustained.
Dip Co.Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Through ... vs State Of Gujarat on 19 July, 2024
40. The scope of Act 33 of 1976 came up for
consideration before this Court on few
occasions, reference may be made to certain
judgments, even though there has been no
elaborate discussion of the provision of the Act
and its impact on the Repeal Act. Reference
may be made to Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya
Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. and
Others (2000) 6 SCC 325, Ghasitey Lal Sahu
and Another v. Competent Authority, Under the
Urban (Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976), U.P.
and Another (2004) 13 SCC 452, Mukarram Ali
Page 66 of 76
Downloaded on : Sat Jul 20 03:30:14 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/34/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2024
undefined
Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(2007) 11 SCC 90 and Vinayak Kashinath
Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority and Others (2012) 4 SCC 718.
Sosamma Thampy vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ult) on 17 April, 2006
" ......This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned
single Judge arising out of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land ( Ceiling and
Regulation) Act,1978. But in view of the State Act, 20 of 199 9, the above
Act, 1978 has been repealed. It is not disputed that the writ appellants are
in possession as on today. If that be so, basing upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in PT. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust Vs. State
of U.P. & Others (JT 2000 (3) S. C.391) in which it is held that the
proceedings under Urban Land ( Ceiling and Regulation) Act gets abated, and
more so if the possession of the land has not been taken over under the Urban
Land Ceiling Act, this writ appeal has to be allowed. This writ appeal is
allowed holding that the appellants are not liable to surrender any land under
the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.