Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Registration Act, 1908
Balvantrai Ambaram Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 8 May, 2014
4.8 He also relied on the decision in Special Civil Application No.5464
of 2014 in the case of Balvantrai Ambaram Patel v. State of
Gujarat and Ors. in support of his submission that qua a claim for
mutation made by a person in the capacity of the owner of the sale
deed, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to mutate the
name of the person in the Revenue records. He relied on paras 5.3
to 5.5 of the decision which read as under:
State Of Maharashtra vs Digambar on 12 May, 1995
E. In the case of Digambar (supra) the Supreme Court as is evident
from the reproduction of paragraphs 13 and 14 hereinabove would
indicate that anyone who is guilty of delay and latches which is not
explained, cannot then plead that he is relieved of his obligation to
overcome such a conduct of delay and laches. A person who is
otherwise guilty of being lethargic and not applying for a prompt
relief, cannot get the benefit from the concerned authorities and
also from this Court when it is exercising powers under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
Dahyabhai Chhitubhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary on 28 February, 2020
There cannot be
dispute on the issue of the law decided by the Court in the case of
Dahyabhai Chhitubhai Rathod (supra) inasmuch as, the
Page 12 of 14
Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 00:22:44 IST 2020
C/SCA/7854/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
provisions of Section 135C make it incumbent upon the officers of
the revenue department to register an entry and the obligation of
the concerned purchaser / holder of the land would stand
discharged. However, in the facts of the present case what is
evident from reading the first order of the City Survey
Superintendent dated 19.08.2016 is that the authorities have found
that the land in question is a long leasehold land and therefore,
without prior permission thereof, the petitioner's purchase couldn't
have happened. It is in these circumstances that in the opinion of
this Court the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner would have no application on the facts of the case.
1