Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Section 2 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 84C in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969
'The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal while saying that the proceedings under section 84C of the Act would not have been followed after a lapse of 5 to 6 years, has placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Raghav Natha, AIR 1969 SC 1297 and in the case of Union of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceutical, Madras, AIR 1981 SC p. 1771. Looking to the principles laid down in the above said two pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Gujarat Revenue tribunal has come to the conclusion that the proceedings under section 84C of the Tenancy Act, 1948 could not have been initiated after a period of 4 to 6 years.
Section 3 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Government Of India vs Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals Madras ... on 20 July, 1989
Reverting back to the factual date it appears that in Special Civil Application No. 7144 of 1993, the Registered Sale Deed was executed and sale was effected on 13.2.1980 while the proceedings under section 84C of the Tenancy Act were initiated in the year 1985. In Special Civil application No. 7145 of 1993 also, the sale was made and the Registered Sale Deed was executed on 13.2.1980 while the proceedings under section 84C of the Tenancy Act were initiated in the year 1985. Thus, the factual date as demonstrated in both these petitions would go to show that the proceedings under section 84C of the Tenancy Act, 1948 were initiated after a lapse of 5 to 6 years. This course definitely was not open to the Tenancy Authorities in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said two pronouncements which have been followed by this court in very many similarly based petitions. It is, therefore, clear that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the proceedings under section 84C of the Tenancy Act would not have been initiated after such a long delay on the basis of the delayed notice. The orders pronounced by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which are in conformity with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said two pronouncements, cannot be successfully challenged in the present proceedings. These two petitions therefore fails and they are hereby rejected. Notice in each of the petitions shall stand discharged."
Ram Chand vs Union Of India (N.P. Singh, J) on 30 September, 1993
This court in connection with other statutory provisions, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India has impressed that where no time limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under section 84C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs. " It is also necessary to note one important aspect that the very same order passed by the tribunal on 23.3.1993 was challenged by the original vendors before this Court in special civil application no. 7144 of 1993 and 7155 of 1993 and this Court by order dated 8th November, 1993, rejected the said petitions. While rejecting the said two petitions by order dated 8th November, 1993, this Court has made the following observations :
Section 63 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
1