Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Baliram S/O Reva Chavhan Thr. P.O.A. ... vs Gajanan S/O Shekarao Wanjare And Others on 30 January, 2020 cites

Lachmanna Malanna Alurwar vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal And Ors. on 18 November, 1991

It was his submission that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench has been ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 01:45:03 ::: WP-1701-19 4/9 consistently followed by various learned Single Judges in Lachmanna Malanna Alurwar vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors. 1992(2) Mh.L.J. 1139, Gopal s/o Jianna Madrewar vs. Poshatti s/o Bhojanna Khurd and ors. 1997(1) ALL MR 341, Sheikh Mohammed s/o Sheikh Gulab vs. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division and ors. 1997(1) ALL MR 680, Shirvram s/o Jairam and anr. vs. Tukaram s/o Raghoji Aage and anr. 1997 (1) Mh.L.R. 27 and Chandrabhagabai w/o Dhondiba Gutte (died LRs) Godavaribai w/o Laxman Gutte and ors. vs. Ladva s/o Narayan Sidarwad and ors. 2006(1) Mh.L.J. 485. Considering this consistent view it was clear that the land in question was not liable to be restored in favour of the respondent No.1 as 'Andh' was recognised as Scheduled Tribe after the transfer of the land. He further submitted that another Division Bench in Kashibai wd/o Sanga Pawar and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 1993(2) Mh.L.J. 1168 has however held that irrespective of the date on which a tribe is recognised as such and included in the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 such tribal transferor would be entitled to be restored the lands transferred by him. Though Section 36-A of the Code has been held to be prospective, the provisions of Section 3(1) of the said Act have been held to apply to past transactions.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mahadeolal Kanodia vs The Administrator-General Ofwest ... on 20 April, 1960

He also referred to the decisions in Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. The Administrator General of West Bengal AIR 1960 SC 936, Dr Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs. Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247 and the decisions of the Full Bench in Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh and ors. 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 555 as well as in Vinayak Hari Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 868 in support of his contentions. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 269 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001

He also referred to the decisions in Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. The Administrator General of West Bengal AIR 1960 SC 936, Dr Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs. Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247 and the decisions of the Full Bench in Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh and ors. 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 555 as well as in Vinayak Hari Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 868 in support of his contentions. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

Vinayak Hari Kulkarni vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 May, 2010

He also referred to the decisions in Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. The Administrator General of West Bengal AIR 1960 SC 936, Dr Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs. Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247 and the decisions of the Full Bench in Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh and ors. 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 555 as well as in Vinayak Hari Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 868 in support of his contentions. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 12 - B H Marlapalle - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000

After referring to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1 it was observed that even if ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 01:45:03 ::: WP-1701-19 8/9 by birth a person is born in a tribal community unless that community is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe, such person cannot get the status of a tribal. The transactions in question were dated 22/06/1969 and 20/03/1970. As the transferor belonged to "Naikda" tribe which tribe was recognised as a 'Scheduled Tribe' by virtue of Act No.108 of 1976 from 27/07/1977, it was held that the transferor was not entitled to restoration of the transferred land.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 616 - S V Patil - Full Document
1