Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.84 seconds)
Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 25 July, 2002 cites

Babu Lal vs Ram Prasad And Ors. on 29 September, 1938

"7. It has been found and is not disputed that the State Government was the occupancy tenant of Kothi Narain Rao, which has a big compound in which the land in dispute is situated of which also the State Government was occupancy tenant and which is in occupation of Collector, Hamirpur since long and was in occupation when the Act was enforced. Both courts below have found that plaintiff was the Zamindar and owner and respondent was lessee and occupancy tenant. Apart from evidence the finding is based on admission in the written statement. Further the respondent contravened the terms of lease by cutting trees and raising constructions over occupancy tenancy, and these constructions could not be considered improvement within U. P. Tenancy Act. Finding as stated earlier has not been challenged. If the constructions over land in dispute is not an improvement then the proviso is fully applicable. Kothi Narain Rao known as Collector's Bungalow of which State Government was occupancy tenant could not, therefore, be declared agricultural area. Nor could the land of compound be considered to be agricultural area within meaning of Act, because what is expected in the proviso is not only building but land appurtenant to it. In Babu Lal v. Ram Pradad, 1938 All LJ 1088 : AIR 1939 All 37 (FB) "appurtenant to an agricultural holding" means something which is adjacent to or an integral part of the holding which was and is in occupancy tenancy of State Government over which the building namely, Collector's bungalow stands is land appurtenant thereto, therefore the building and the land could not be agricultural area."
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1