Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.56 seconds)Section 33 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Section 3 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Tariq And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 31 August, 2017
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.5.2015 passed by respondent no. 2 in Revision No. C 2015130000121 U/s 56 (1) of Indian Stamp Act (Mohammad Tariq Vs. State of UP and others) as well as the order dated 29.12.2014 passed by respondent no. 3 in Case No. D-2014135900322 U/s 33/47 A of Indian Stamp Act (State Vs. Mohammad Tariq) (Contained in Annexure No. 5 and 7 to this writ petition). "
Smt.Prakashwati vs Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 9 July, 1996
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakashwati Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue,UP at Allahabad 1996 (4) SCC 637 has held as under:
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Bank Of Baroda & Others 02/06/2015 ... on 2 June, 2015
In Maya Food v. C.C.R.A., a Single Judge of this Court has held that market value of the land cannot be determined with reference to the use of the land to which buyer intends to put it and that in determining the market value the potential of the land as on the date of the sale alone can be taken into account and not the potential it may have in the distant future.
Yashoda Raj Kumari Kunjil vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 September, 2010
11. This Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2023 (5) AWC 4511] has held as under:
Aniruddha Kumar And Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, ... on 19 July, 2000
16. In view of the definition of land contained in the law relating to land tenures, i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the fact that the land was not declared as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as explained under section 3(14) of the said Act, in itself becomes a relevant factor for determining the nature of land that was subject matter of instrument. This Court in various authorities has held that when the land is purchased for agricultural purposes and declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 has not been made and merely because the land is situated in close vicinity of the non-agricultural land, the same would not loose its character as the agricultural land for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. Reference can be made to few authorities of this Court in the case of Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and another, reported in 2000 (3) AWC 2587; Smt. Sushila Verma vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (2) AWC 1492 and Sudama vs Chief Controlling Authority and others, reported in 2013 (4) AWC 3571.