Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Registration Act, 1908
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. Etc. Etc on 7 August, 1990
He submits that this is in accordance with Para 14 of the DDA Scheme and the Brochure issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development of such conversions. According to the learned
counsel as per the Scheme since such conversion has been recognised by the Government, there is no deviation from the provisions of law i. e. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, The Registration Act, 1908, Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned counsel has submitted that under Section 4(2)(a) of the PP Act, the Estate Officer should have given a specific finding that the applicants are in unauthorised occupation of the public premises before passing the eviction order which has not been done in this case. He relies on Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, AIR 1991 SC 855, Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. v. Estate Officer and Ors., AIR 1991 NOC 3 (Patna) and Minoo Framroze Balsara v. Union of India, AIR 1992 Bombay 375. He submits that the impugned order of eviction dated 17.7.1997 does not show that the Estate Officer has any reasons for passing the order of vacation/eviction under Section 5 of the PP Act. The applicant has also challenged the vires of the order issued by the respondents dated 25.3.1996 wherein it has been provided that House owners who transfer their property on General Power of Attorney will continue to be treated as house owners for the purpose of regularisation of accommodation in the name of wards of retiring/deceased Government employee, till the title of the ownership is formally transferred in the name of the buyer of such property. The respondents have submitted that the regularisation of the quarter in the name of the wards cannot be done in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the order passed by the respondents dated 25.3.1996. The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted by now Shri R.K. Mehta, would have probably got Conveyance Deed/Sale Deed in pursuance of the Agreement to Sell of the property in his name but he has been unable to get the copies of these documents to prove that Applicant 2 no longer owns any house in Delhi. He submits that in any case because of the Power of Attorney executed by Applicant 2 in favour of Shri R.K. Mehta, the applicants are no more owners of the house.
Section 18 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
M.L. Joshi vs Director Of Estates, Government Of ... on 7 November, 1966
In the impugned order, Shri P.M. Mishra has signed and affixed the Seal of the Estate Officer in the Directorate of Estates and in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Sections 18 and 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. There is no reason to doubt that the eviction order dated 17.7.1997 has been passed by the Estate Officer in the Director of Estates. It is also relevant to note that it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order dated 17.7.1997 has not been passed by Shri P.M. Mishra who has been notified as Assistant Director of Estates (Litigation). The observations of the Delhi High Court in M.L. Joshi v. Director of Estates, Government of India, New Delhi and Anr., AIR 1967 Delhi 86, are applicable to the facts of this case, where the Deputy Director of Estates (Litigation) has been held to be 'the Estate Officer' within the provisions of Section 3 of the PP Act, 1958. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the applicants on this account appears to be baseless and is also rejected.