Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.62 seconds)
Kaprat Family Trust vs Union Of India Represented By Its ... on 15 January, 2024 cites

E. Keshava Bhat vs K.S. Subraya Bhat on 29 August, 1979

15. From the above dictum and also a perusal of Section 3H of the Act 1956 would show the scope of enquiry to be conducted by CALA. As per Section 3H(3), the CALA has to determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable, WP(C) Nos.21231 of 2023 & connected cases 160 which is determined under Section 3G of the Act, 1956. From the above, it is clear that the CALA has some power to determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable, which is determined under Section 3G of the Act, 1956. If any dispute arises, then only, the CALA needs to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. What is the meaning of "Dispute arises" mentioned in Section 3H(4) of the Act 1956? A larger bench of this Court in Kesava Bhat V. Surbryaya Bhat(1979 KLT 766), while considering the scope of Section 125 of the Land Reforms Act, considered the meaning of "arises". It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment here:
Kerala High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 60 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Vinod Kumar vs District Magistrate Mau on 7 July, 2023

Section 3H (4) says that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The Apex Court in Vinod Kumar's case considered the scope of Section 3H(3). It will be better to extract the same here:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - B R Gavai - Full Document
1   2 Next