Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)Section 36 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Article 46 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Section 3 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Fulchand Kasturchand Trust vs Mumbai Municipal Corpn. And 2 Ors on 6 March, 2023
Attention in this regard was drawn
to the decisions in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
2-Civil Writ Petition No.2727 of 2018-Judgment.doc 7/37
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:24:50 :::
and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ismail and Ors., 1991 INSC 99
Anahita Pandole Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
(2004) 6 Bom CR 246, Shiva Petro-Synth Specialities Ltd
and another Vs. Goa State Pollution Control Board and
others, (2021) 4 Bom CR 591 and Binod Rao Vs.
Minocher Rustom Masani, 1976 (78) Bom.L.R. 125. The
learned counsel also referred observations of Starling, J.
Gell vs Taja Noora on 2 February, 1903
22. Under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Rules of 1975, it is permissible for a
tribal to transfer his occupancy if the non-tribal transferor intends to use
the said land for bonafide non-agricultural purpose. If transfer of an
occupancy to a non-tribal who intends to use it for agricultural purpose is
2-Civil Writ Petition No.2727 of 2018-Judgment.doc 34/37
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:24:50 :::
not permissible, there would be no occasion whatsoever for the Collector
to entertain such application since it would be beyond the purview of Rule
4(1)(a)(i) of the Rules of 1975. The question of exercising discretion
would therefore be only within the permissible limits of Rule 4(1)(a)(i)
and not de hors the same. Once it is found that the restriction placed on a
tribal on the transfer of his occupancy to a non-tribal for agricultural
purpose is reasonable in nature, it cannot be said that the discretion to be
exercised by the Collector in this regard is restricted. Within the
contingencies indicated in Rule 4(1), the Collector has the entire
discretion and he can consider the request for grant of sanction for
transfer under Section 36A of the Code. We therefore do not find that the
ground raised by the petitioner that the discretion conferred on the
Collector in the matter of grant of sanction under Section 36A of the Code
being restrictive in nature is bad in law deserves acceptance. The
observations of Starling J in Gell (supra) do not further the case of the
petitioner.
Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar vs Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr on 22 February, 1995
In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar (supra), refusal of permission by
the Collector under Section 36A of the Code was under challenge.
Referring to the historical background behind enactment of Section 36A of
the Code, it was held that obtaining prior permission for alienation of land
was a condition precedent and before such permission was granted, the
Competent Authority was enjoined by the operation of Article 46 of the
Constitution to enquire whether such alienation was void under law or
violated the provisions of the Constitution and whether permission could
be legitimately granted. The Competent Authority was required to look
into the nature of the property, subject matter of proposed conveyance and
pre-existing rights flowing thereunder as well as consider whether such
2-Civil Writ Petition No.2727 of 2018-Judgment.doc 21/37
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:24:50 :::
alienation or encumbrance would violate provisions of the Constitution or
the law.
Samatha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 11 July, 1997
Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1993 Mh.L.J. 1168; (ii)
Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar Vs. Vishwanath Pandu
Barde and Anr., 1995 INSC 130; (iii) Samatha Vs. State
of A.P. and Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 191; and (iv) Atul
Projects India Ltd. Vs. Babu Dewoo Farle and Ors., 2011
(6) Mh.L.J. 351 in that regard. It was thus submitted
that this challenge as raised by the petitioner was not
liable to be accepted.