Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Shivgonda Balgonda Patil And Others vs The Director Of Resettlement And Others on 8 February, 1991

Jagrup Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 18 February, 1993

44. It has also been argued, in this connection, that Sub-section (2) of Section 6 states that last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice (hereinafter referred to as 'the date of publication of declaration'), is suggestive of the fact that the date of publication is relevant only for the purpose of provisions appearing after Section 6(2) and, is not relevant or related to provisions of Section 6(1), which precedes Section 6(2). The use of the expression "hereinafter", according to learned counsel, is significant and is clearly indicative that the definition of the "last of the dates of publication", is for the purposes of subsequent provisions of the Act and not for the preceding provisions, including Section 6(1) of the Act. For this submission, learned counsel relied on Umesh Aggrawal's case (1989 LACC 675) (All) (supra) and Lt. K. Padmadas's case (AIR 1992 Ker 158) (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Vasant Dhondopant Deo vs State Of Maharashtra Through The Chief ... on 27 June, 2003

13.In - Shivgonda Balgonda Patil and others V. The Director of Resettlement and others, it is observed in paragraphs No.18 and 19 that, "In the case of Ganpat Balwant Pawar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer No.7 reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 752 : (AIR 1984 Bom.382) (FB), in almost identical circumstances the Full Bench of this Court negatived the contentions of the petitioners therein that there was any partition between the members of the joint family concerned or that each person must be considered as having a separate holding for the purpose of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. In the case before the Full Bench also it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that although the total holding of the joint family was large, subsequently each of the petitioners was allotted only a portion of the land and as a result, each person must be held to cultivate his land separately and independently; and this should be considered as his holding. The Full Bench pointed out that there was only a single khata (account) of all the petitioners together though against the name of each petitioner, it was mentioned that he was holding a 1/4th share in the lands in the same khata. The situation is identical in the present case. We have no evidence of any partition before us. This contention was raised by the petitioners even at the stage of enquiry u/s. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no material before us to show that such of the petitioners is having any independent holding which can be taken into account for the purpose of the said Act."
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S T Kharche - Full Document

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka And Another on 17 November, 1997

There is no dispute that the date of the publication of the notifications and declaration shall he the last of the dates of the publication of the notification or the declaration in the manner prescribed under the aforesaid two sections. Making of declaration under Section 6 means the signing of the declaration by the Competent Authority and publication of the declarations is the follow-up action which is resorted to without loss of time. Time limit provided under sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall not be applicable to the publication of notification under sub-section (2). Dealing with such an argument, Mrs. Sujata Manohar (as her Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench in the case of Shivgonda Balgonda Patil and Others v Director of Resettlement and Others , held:
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Bapuji Education Society, Tumkur vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 4 February, 1998

There is no dispute that the date of the publication of the notifications and declaration shall be the last of the dates of the publication of the notification or the declaration in the manner prescribed under the aforesaid two sections. Making of declaration under Section 6 means the signing of the declaration by the competent authority and publication of the declarations is the follow-up action which is resorted without loss of time. Time limit provided under sub-Section (1) of Section 6 shall not be applicable to the publication of notification under sub-section (2). Dealing with such an argument, Mrs. Sujatha Manohar (as her Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench in the case of Shivgonda Balgonda Patil and Others v Director of Resettlement and Others held.-
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Sh. Saurabh Kumar Puri vs Smt. Motia Rani on 25 April, 2018

(i) The contention of the petitioners that there was automatic partition   amongst   the   heirs   of   the   deceased   Karta   on   his   death   has   been   negatived because it is only when the deceased had left his surviving   female heirs as provided in proviso to section 6 of the Act, a notional   partition is deemed to have taken place in the joint family property for the   purpose of ascertaining the share of the deceased in the joint family   properties which comes to the share of the female heirs. If there are   male heirs there is no automatic partition; Shivgonda Balgonda Patil v.   Director of Resettlement, AIR 1992 Bom 72.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next