Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.11 seconds)Repealing Act, 1938
Section 4 in Repealing Act, 1938 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978
The Repealing and Amending Act, 2017
State Of Assam & Ors vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors on 27 November, 2014
i) “State of Assam versus Bhaskar Jyothi Sarma and others”
reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321, wherein, it has been held as under:
Sulochana Chandrakant Galande vs Pune Municipal Transport & Ors on 3 August, 2010
iv) In “Tmt.Sulochana Chandrakant Galanda Vs Pune Municipal
Transport and others”, in Civil Appeal No. 492 of 2007, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in para 34 as under:
A.N.Visalakshi vs The Special Commissioner on 5 August, 2015
In
this regard, the learned Senior counsel relied upon a judgment of a Division
of the this Court, reported in 2015 (5) CTC 823 (A.N.Vishalakshi versus
Special Commissioner) wherein, it has been held in para 14 and 15 as
under:
Gjanan Kamlya Patil vs Addl.Collector & Comp.Auth.(Ulc) & Ors on 14 February, 2014
11. The learned Senior counsel would further contend that the
appellants have not taken over the possession of the subject land either by
virtue of Section 11(5) of the Act as admittedly, even according to the
appellants, the land owner had not come forward to surrender the surplus
land, which shows that the land owner had not given consent voluntarily
towards taking possession of the subject land; or by issuing notice invoking
Section 11(6) in respect of forceful possession, but admittedly, no such
19/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm )
W.A.No.1531 of 2025
notice was issued. Therefore, according to him, there is nothing on record
to show that the appellants had taken forceful possession, nor is there
anything to show that the erstwhile owner had given voluntary possession
and thereby, it would clearly indicate that only de jure possession had been
taken by the appellants and not de facto possession before coming into
force of the repeal of the Act. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2014) 12 SCC 523 (Gajanan Kamlya Patil
versus Addl.Collector and Competent authority (ULC) and others),
wherein, in paragraph 12 and 13, it has been held as under:
State Of U.P vs Hari Ram on 11 March, 2013
"8. The issue as to whether taking over of the land
by symbolic possession can be construed as possession
32/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:03 pm )
W.A.No.1531 of 2025
taken and based on such act, whether the authorities can
claim right over the land after the Repeal Act, has
already been considered and decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs., Hari Ram
reported in 2013-3-MLJ-408(SC) at para 38 and 39,
which reads as follows:-