Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.44 seconds)Section 89 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Article 31A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tatoba Bhau Savagave (D) By Lrs. & Anr vs Vasantrao Dhindiraj Deshpande & Ors on 5 October, 2001
We are quite conscious that the above view of
Chagla, C.J. has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of
Tatoba Bhau
Savagave v. V.D. Deshpande, reported in AIR 2001 SC 4029,
referred to by Mr. Trivedi.
Shamalsha Girdhari Co. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 9 January, 2001
8. According to Mr. Trivedi,
because of introduction of restriction as regards situation of the
agricultural land in section 2[6] of the Bombay Tenancy Act with
effect from 16.3.1956 and subsequent removal thereof on 30.3.2011
with retrospective effect, the philosophy of Bombay Tenancy Act
referred to above has not been changed at all and thus, the judgment
of the Division Bench in case of Shamalsha
Girdhari Co. vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2001
[4] GLR 3180,
does not require
any reconsideration. Mr. Trivedi submits that the legal position
which has been holding the field for last more than six decades that
in order to be an agriculturist under the Bombay Tenancy Act, a
person is required to cultivate personally agricultural land located
within the State. Consequently, Mr. Trivedi continues, a person
cultivating outside the State, cannot become owner of an agricultural
land located within the State. Mr. Trivedi contends that if the said
position is reversed, the same may invite many evils as discussed
hereinabove.
Article 31B in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shashikant Mohanlal Desai And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 7 January, 1969
25.1 In the case before us, we
are not concerned with the transfer of a land belonging to a tenant
and thus, the said decision as well as the reference to Chapter III
containing Sections 31 to 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act by Mr. Trivedi
would have no application to the facts of the present case. Chapter
III deals with special rights and privileges of tenants and
provisions for distribution of land for personal cultivation.
Therefore, the provisions contained in Chapter III cannot help Mr.
Trivedi for resolving the question involved in the present cases.
State Of West Bengal vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1962
In the case of State
of West Bengal vs. Union of India
reported in AIR
1963 SC 1241,
the Supreme Court pointed out [in paragraph 13] that the statute as
passed by the Parliament is an expression of the collective intention
of the legislature as a whole and any statement made by an individual
albeit a Minister, of the intention and objects of the Act cannot be
used to cut down the generality of the words used in the statute.