Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)
Kheta Ram & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 February, 2017 cites

Dharam Pal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 18 July, 2013

In view of the settled law laid down by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 37; Surja Ram vs. State of Haryana 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 18 and Bharat Bhushan vs. State of Haryana and others 1980 PLJ 563, the landowner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment vis-a-vis tenant, in essence, once the proceedings of declaration of the land being surplus had attained finality, it cannot be re-opened or revaluated by taking the benefit of the Haryana Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "1972 Act"). However, the Collector, vide order dated 30.04.2007 (Annexure P-3) remanded the matter back to the allotment authority/SDO (Civil) for a fresh decision after inviting the claims from eligible persons, in view of the provisions of 1976 Scheme, afresh, by holding that the allotment can be done only under category "BB" and not under category "A". The aforementioned order of District Collector was assailed before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner but the order of the Collector remanding the matter had been upheld, thus present petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 561 - A Kabir - Full Document

Surja Ram vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 13 February, 1984

In view of the settled law laid down by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 37; Surja Ram vs. State of Haryana 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 18 and Bharat Bhushan vs. State of Haryana and others 1980 PLJ 563, the landowner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment vis-a-vis tenant, in essence, once the proceedings of declaration of the land being surplus had attained finality, it cannot be re-opened or revaluated by taking the benefit of the Haryana Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "1972 Act"). However, the Collector, vide order dated 30.04.2007 (Annexure P-3) remanded the matter back to the allotment authority/SDO (Civil) for a fresh decision after inviting the claims from eligible persons, in view of the provisions of 1976 Scheme, afresh, by holding that the allotment can be done only under category "BB" and not under category "A". The aforementioned order of District Collector was assailed before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner but the order of the Collector remanding the matter had been upheld, thus present petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Megh Raj And Ors. vs Manphool Singh And Ors. on 28 January, 2008

He further submitted that the orders under challenge are illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking, much less non-sustainable on the premise that the 3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2017 14:13:21 ::: CWP No.18837 of 2013 {4} TPA had, rightly, been declared by the Collector entitling the petitioners for allotment under category 'A', for, copies of the jamabandi and khasra girdawari available on the file reveal that since 1930 till date, the land remained in cultivation of the tenant and successor-in-interest. The landowner had no right to challenge the order of determination of TPA and in this regard relied upon the ratio decidendi culled out by this Court in Megh Raj and others vs. Manphool and others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 241.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - R Bhalla - Full Document

Satnam Kaur Deceased Th.Lrs vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab ... on 23 September, 2016

He further submitted that as per the ratio decidendi culled out by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Hari Chand (dead) through LRs vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 547, the land which has been declared surplus either under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law, remained un-utilized and the landowner continues to be in possession thereof, has to be re-computed after introduction of 1972 Act, in essence, once the tenant had occupied the land and the landowner was not in possession, it stood utilized the day it was declared to be TPA. As per the provisions of Section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Land Reforms Act"), tenant's right to purchase the land cannot be taken away, in essence, he can make the application for purchase within one year of commencement of Land Reforms Act, though which was not done in the present case. The authorities enjoined upon an obligation while declaring the land as surplus to determine TPA, in essence, the tenants were never issued any notice at the time of declaration of the area as surplus.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - M Grover - Full Document

Gutti vs State Of Haryana on 30 August, 2010

The aforementioned view of mine is reiterated from the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.2500 of 1984 titled as Gutti vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 14.08.2008. There is no replication to the candid stand taken in the written statement on behalf of respondent no.6, whereby, the allotment of other area as indicated in favour of the petitioners has not been disputed or denied. In my view, the orders of Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner affirming the order of the Collector in remanding the matter back for categorization are perfectly legal and justified.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - R Bindal - Full Document
1