Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Maharaj Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 2 November, 1976
"31. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our
view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession
though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily
surrendering or delivering possession. The Court in Maharaj
Singh v. State of U.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 155], while
interpreting Section 117(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word
of slippery import and has many meanings and the context
controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the
particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning.
...............
Rajendra Kumar vs Kalyan (D) By Lrs on 2 August, 2000
The court in
Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (dead) by Lrs. (2000) 8 SCC 99 held
as follows:
State Of U.P vs Hari Ram on 11 March, 2013
The contention of the first respondent is that possession of the
surplus land was never surrendered to the Government and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/9/2023
10:36:25 AM
25
above observations in Hari Ram's case are squarely applicable
and by virtue of the repeal Act, land ceiling proceedings stood
abated."
The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar vs Dy.Collector & Competent Auth.& Ors on 29 February, 2012
The fact which has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/9/2023
10:36:25 AM
20
established is that no factual possession was taken from the
appellants and they continued to be in possession till filing of the
appeal which was filed on 24.6.2002 after coming into force of
Repeal Act, 1999. In aforesaid circumstances, the appellants were
in possession of the land, as on the date, on which the Repeal Act,
1999 came into force. In such circumstances, it can very well be
said that the proceedings were pending on the date when the
Repeal Act came into force. If the appellants remained in
possession of the land and their possession was not disturbed, then
they were entitled to retain the land and the proceedings shall be
deemed to have been abated [See: Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar Vs.
Deputy Collector and Competent Authority & others (2012) 4
SCC 718].
Sushil Kumar vs Rakesh Kumar on 16 October, 2003
In the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court is cases
of Naseem Bano (supra) and Sushil Kumar (supra), I am also of the
opinion that if there is no specific denial of the factual aspect then it is
deemed that whatever facts mentioned and not denied are deemed to be
correct.