Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)
Satishbhai Jivabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2022 cites

Evergreen Apartment Co-Operative ... vs Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue ... on 16 August, 1990

As can be noticed from the order of the Secretary (Appeal), relying on the decision in 'EVERGREEN APARTMENT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY V. SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GUJARAT STATE' (Supra), it had directed the concerned authority to inquire into the provisions of the Fragmentation Act on following due procedure. In both the above referred authorities, even the time of four years for initiating any action for breach of the Fragmentation Act has been considered to be bad in law, whereas, in this case, the petitioners, who are the heirs of the original seller and who have enjoyed and taken benefits of the sale consideration, are desirous of taking advantage of their own wrong after nearly 20 years and made an application to the authority concerned for not granting permission for division of the Block, which, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be permitted."
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 137 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969

This Court in connection with other statutory provisions, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India has impressed that where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under Section 84-C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 726 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Ram Chand vs Union Of India (N.P. Singh, J) on 30 September, 1993

This Court in connection with other statutory provisions, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India has impressed that where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under Section 84-C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 114 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next