Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (3.99 seconds)
Documents citing Sadruddin Suleman Jhaveri vs J.H. Patwardhan And Ors. on 31 July, 1964

Arnold Rodricks & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 March, 1966

(ii) Sadruddin Suleman Jhaveri v. Patwardhan(2). With respect we find that in these two cases no attempt has been made to construe the actual words used in S. 3(4) and it has been assumed that the section merely allowed the State Government to confer on the ,Commissioner powers and impose duties which have been conferred or imposed on the State Government under other enactments. We have construed the words used in S. 3(4) and we are of the opinion that this is not what they mean. The words are of very wide amplitude and as they stand they confer on the State Government power to amend any other Act and confer on the Commissioner powers and impose duties under those acts which may be conferred thereunder on any authority. Further there is nothing in the words of s. 3(4) confining conferment of powers of exe- cutive nature only. As the words stand, any powers and duties of any authority can be conferred on the Commissioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 73 - Full Document

Baldevbhai Nathabhai And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 2 August, 1968

Vide paragraph 81 of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sadruddin Suleman v. J.H. Patwardhan . But we are not satisfied that such was the position in the present case. It must be noted that when acquisition was initiated in the present case by the issue of Section 4 notification on 7th December 1961, even the Corporations Act was not enacted, much less was the Corporation constituted. The Corporations Act came into force on 9th August 1962 and it was, therefore, not until that date that the Corporation was constituted. There could accordingly be no question at the stage of issue of Section 4 notification of compensation coming out of any fund other than public revenues. Thereafter the Corporation was constituted and it appears from the statement in the affidavit of Malek that the State Government did contemplate entrustment of the petitioners' lands to the Corporation for establishing industrial township but there is nothing to show that the State Government at any time entertained the idea that the full cost of acquisition may be paid by the Corporation instead of its coming out of public revenues. On the contrary, the words "at the public expense" in the recital in the impugned Section 6 notification clearly indicate that the decision of the State Government was that compensation shall come wholly or in part out of public revenues. There is no material produced by the petitioners to counteract or offset the effect of these words. There is nothing to show that these words were wrongly used and that in fact the State Government had not made up its mind that compensation shall come out wholly or partly out of public revenues but had left the question to be decided according as conditions for entrustment of the lands to the Corporation were determined. It must therefore be held that prior to the issue of the impugned Section 6 notification, there was a decision of the State Government that compensation is to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues and the first limb of the requirement of the proviso was satisfied.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Hakim Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 14 October, 1968

10. Mr. Shafiq Mirza has invited our attention of Sadruddin Suleman Jhaveri v. J. H. Patwardhan, AIR 1965 Bom 224. That is a clearly distinguishable case. In that case the learned Judges were called upon to decide whether the question that a land is or is not waste or arable is to be decided on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate government or on the basis of objective factors. The Bombay Judges held that the opinion was to be based on objective test.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Prem Bai vs The State Of M.P. And Ors. on 1 August, 1975

9. Lastly, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied to agricultural lands already under cultivation. According to the petitioners, the term 'waste and arable lands' could include either waste lands or lands only fit for cultivation, but not lands already under cultivation. Reliance was placed on Sadruddin Suleman v. J. H. Patwardhan, AIR 1965 Bom 224.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

J.W. Benon vs State on 8 November, 1967

(37) In Sadaruddin Sadaruddin Suleman v. J. A. Patwardhan, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, relying on an earlier decision of a Division Bench of the same court in Namit Lal v. State of Bombay, held that land which is a building-site within municipal limits and situated in the developed part of the city cannto be regarded as arable land much less as waste land, and that a building site which is quite suitable to be built upon cannto be regarded as waste land simply because is nto put to any present use. The learned Judges pointed out that it is unfitness for use and nto the mere fact that it is nto put to any present use, that must determine whether the land is waste or nto.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narayan Govind Gavate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 June, 1967

He contended that the formation of the opinion as mentioned herein is subjective to the authority, i.e., the Government or the Commissioner as the case may be and that it is not justiciable. He further contended that even if it be held that it is justiciable, there is a recital in each of the two relevant notifications under Section 4 in the words "The Commissioner, Bombay Division, is of the opinion that the said lands are waste or arable lands and that their acquisition is urgently necessary" and that because of that recital a presumption arises that all conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Section 17(4) were duly complied with and satisfied. He contended that in view of that recital it would be open to the petitioner to show by admissible evidence that that recital is false or incorrect, but that in this case the petitioner has not placed any material whatever before the Court to show that in fact any evidence existed. In support of his contention that the formation of opinion under Section 1.7(4) is subjective, Mr. Setalvad relied upon certain authorities. Mr. Sorabji had, however, at the initial stage relied upon the Judgment in Sadruddin v. J.H. Patwardhan (1964) 67 Bom. L.R. 101 and sought to argue that the formation of such opinion is not subjective and that the respondents must establish that conditions precedent to the exercise of that power had in fact been fulfilled.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next