Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)Sebati Behera vs Subasi Nayak And Anr. on 14 July, 2006
15. The ratio in the case of Sebati Behera (supra) applies with
full force to the facts of the case. Thus no permission was required to
be taken by a person belonging to Haldipokhari Bhumija under
Section 22 of the OLR Act for alienation of the land.
Zile Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 October, 2004
Relying on the decision of the apex Court
in the case of Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2004 AIR
SCW 5842, the referral court held that the presumption against
retrospective operation is not applicable to "declaratory statute" and
where a statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious
omission in a former statute or to 'explain' a former statute, the
subsequent statute has relation back to the time when the prior Act
was passed. The rule against retrospectively is inapplicable to such
legislations as are "explanatory and declaratory" in nature.
State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000
11. The Constitution Bench of the apex Court in the case of
Milind (supra) held that it is not at all permissible to hold any
enquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or
tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal
community is included in the general name even though it is not
specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Section 2 in The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960
Babuli Alias Narayan Bahera vs The State Of Orissa on 22 November, 1973
14. It is apt to refer the relevant paragraph of Narayan Behera
(supra) :
1