Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Section 5 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951
Rojasara Ramjibhai Dahyabhai vs Jani Narottamdas Lallubhai (Dead)By ... on 10 April, 1986
In Rojasara Ramjibhai Dahyabhai's case, cited supra, the Apex Court held that the respondents therein were entitled for the decree of specific performance of contract. The allegation that the appellant had an imperfect title is without any basis whatever. With the extinction of the title of "RS" and the conferral of the rights of an occupant on the appellant under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951, the property became transferable by him. It cannot, thereafter, be said that the contract between the parties, the appellant and the respondents, was a contingent contract, the performance of which was dependent upon fulfilment of the condition under the earlier agreement by which the appellant's vendor "RS" had undertaken upon himself the obligation of procuring the necessary sanction from the Collector. As such occupant, it is undisputed that the appellant made an application to the revenue authorities permitting the conversion of the disputed land into village site. Thereafter there was no legal impediment in the way of the appellant in executing a sale deed.
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Section 10 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Chandrabhan Chunnilal Gour vs Shrawan Kumar Khunnolal Gour And Anr. on 27 April, 1979
The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon Chandrabhan Chunnilal Gour v. Dr. Shrawan Kumar Khunnolal to support the contention that ex post facto sanction obtained after the sale transaction is not a sanction at all in the eye of law and transaction would not be valid. It was therefore submitted that it is not a purely technical or procedural aspect but it affects the very right of the trust and the public who have interest in that property. It is not a mere technicality and therefore contract cannot be valid unless there is previous sanction.
Shantabai vs Manakchand Ratanchand Raka on 16 February, 1987
8. This Court in Shantabai's case, cited supra, held that about the legal position in this behalf, there need not be much dispute. The position, should be the same as under the Tenancy Act and the Land Revenue Code in which cases a conditional decree is passed by the Courts. Even in the present case, a conditional decree can be passed by this Court requiring the plaintiff to make suitable application to the Competent Authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act: (a) for directing the defendant to file a revised return excluding this land from the category of land shown as excess vacant land because he could not cause loss to the plaintiff by making a choice of the suit land to be the excess suit land, or (b) for an application for exemption of suit land from the provisions of Section 10 and other allied provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
1