Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.43 seconds)The U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960
Section 30 in The U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Devendra Nath Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. ... vs Civil Judge, Basti And Ors. on 23 September, 1998
In view of what has been stated by the Apex Court in Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) this Court hold that second notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act is bad in law. In my view, the authorities below, in the present case also, have completely erred in law as proceedings under Ceiling Act were already finalized pursuant to the notice issued earlier in 1974 and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot sustain."
Children Act, 1960
Ram Charan vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 19 September, 1978
7. The Apex Court also considered the Full Bench judgment in Ram Charan v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 Alld. 114 and explained that therein the findings were arrived at under the provisions of Consolidation Act and, therefore, the Full Bench held that in view of Section 38-B of Ceiling Act, the said finding will have no binding effect in the ceiling proceedings.
Girja Shanker Son Of Musai Rai And Sri ... vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2005
5. In my view, this contention is correct. So far as the question of ostensibility of ownership is concerned, there has been no change in the law by the various amendments effected. Therefore, in so far as such plots are concerned as were sought to be included in the holding of the tenure-holder, in the earlier ceiling proceedings, but which were ultimately excluded by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 6-5-1964 from his holding after allowing his objections in this instant petition has arisen. This is one the basis of the aforesaid Division Bench pronouncement in Uma Shankder's case (Supra). However, I am not going into certain other questions which may arise on account of the change which was brought about in reference to ceiling law relating to a Co-operative Society in view of S.5(4) of the present Act and the deletion of S.6 (15) of the unamended Act, i.e. before it was amended by U.P. Amending Act No. 18 of 1973."