Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
State Of Maharashtra vs Annapurnabai And Ors. on 2 May, 1985 cites

Dadarao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 November, 1973

3. The respondents were obviously dissatisfied with this order passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal and they accordingly filed a 1 Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the decisions of both the Sub Divisional Officer and the learned Member of the Tribunal. The High Court by its judgment dated 24th October 1970 reversed the order passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Sub Divisional Officer for disposal according to Law. The High Court found that the point arising in the present case was concluded by its own earlier decision in Dadarao v. State of Maharashtra (1969) Maharashtra Law Journal 813 and following that decision, the High Court held that on the death of Abhimanji before the declaration of any part of his land as surplus land, the respondents inherited the land belonging to Abhimanji and thereupon each of the respondents was liable to be treated as an independent tenure holder in his or her own right and the ceiling should have been applied on that basis. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by this view taken by the High Court preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (Dead) By Lrs. & ... vs Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed & Ors on 11 February, 1982

4. The question arising in this appeal is no longer res integra it is concluded in favor of the State by the decision of the court in Vicobar Shankar v. Mohan Lal . It was held by this Court in that case that the liability to surrender surplus land does not in any way come to an end by reason of the death of the holder before the actual extent of surplus land is determined and notified Under Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act no doubt states that the title of the holder of the surplus land would become vested in the State Govt. only on such land being taken possession of after a declaration regarding the surplus land is published in Official Gazette. But the liability to surrender the surplus land relates back to the appointed day in case of those who held land in excess of the ceiling on the appointed day. Therefore, even if the holder dies before declaration of any part of his land as surplus land, the surplus land is liable to be determined with reference to his holding on the appointed day and it is not open to the heirs and legal representatives of the holder to contend that they have inherited the land belonging to the holder and that the surplus land should be determined on the footing that each of them is an independent tenure holder in his or her own right. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in taking the view that the respondents being the heirs and legal representatives of Abhimanji should have been treated as independent tenure holders and the ceiling should have been fixed on that basis.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 28 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1