Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Section 5 in The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Smt. Kaushalya Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 11 December, 2007
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.3911 of
1983 (Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others), 3912 of
1983 (Parmod Kumar through L.Rs. Vs. State of Haryana and others)
and 4756 of 2000 (Smt.Kaushalya Devi & others Vs. State of
Haryana & others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition
No.3911 of 1983.
Smt. Bhagwanti Devi And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 19 January, 1994
In this
regard only, reliance is placed on the case of Smt.Bhagwanti Devi
and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, 1994 PLJ 245 SC.
Reference is also made to the case of Gopal and others Vs. State
of Haryana and others, 1997(2) PLJ 441, where again a similar
view is taken by observing that surplus area determined and
declared before 24.1.1971 stands automatically vested in the State
under Section 12(3) and heirs of landowner cannot inherit surplus
area on the death of landowner. Reliance is also placed on some
judgments passed by the Financial Commissioners, where it is
observed that the landowner cannot be allowed to reduce the surplus
area by making sales.
Mewa Ram (Deceased) By His L.Rs. And Ors vs State Of Haryana Through The ... on 26 August, 1986
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.3911 of
1983 (Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others), 3912 of
1983 (Parmod Kumar through L.Rs. Vs. State of Haryana and others)
and 4756 of 2000 (Smt.Kaushalya Devi & others Vs. State of
Haryana & others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition
No.3911 of 1983.
Section 5C in The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Gopal Ram And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 12 August, 1998
In this
regard only, reliance is placed on the case of Smt.Bhagwanti Devi
and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, 1994 PLJ 245 SC.
Reference is also made to the case of Gopal and others Vs. State
of Haryana and others, 1997(2) PLJ 441, where again a similar
view is taken by observing that surplus area determined and
declared before 24.1.1971 stands automatically vested in the State
under Section 12(3) and heirs of landowner cannot inherit surplus
area on the death of landowner. Reliance is also placed on some
judgments passed by the Financial Commissioners, where it is
observed that the landowner cannot be allowed to reduce the surplus
area by making sales.
Harbans Singh And Anr. vs Ajit Singh And Ors. on 18 November, 1974
In Harbans Singh and Gurbakhsh Singh
Vs. Ajit Singh and others ,1975 PLJ 85, it is held that the selection
made by landowner under Section 5-B(1) cannot be changed by
Collector or Commissioner or Financial Commissioner. This was also
a case where landowner has shown land sold a couple of months
earlier in Form `E' as surplus area. It was further held that the vendee
cannot insist that the land sold should be included in the reserved
area of the landowner and that Collector has no justification in
determining whether fraud was committed by the landowner on
vendee.
Lajpat Rai And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 April, 1981
In fact, the
operation of these provisions have been succinctly discussed in
detail in Lajpat Rai's case (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As
per the ratio of law, the propositions, which emerged from the various
provisions in this regard, have been set out in this judgment as
under:-