Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.49 seconds)The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 11 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Assam & Ors vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors on 27 November, 2014
(iii) It is held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (supra) has no
applicability in the present case.
Dashrath And 2 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2022
(8) Learned counsel has specifically argued that the actual physical
possession was never taken from the petitioners, even no symbolic
possession has taken as there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate
that for taking possession any notice was issued and received by the tenure
holders and the possession receipt filed by the respondent/State appears to
be a paper formality as from the said receipt it would be evident that it does
not contain any signature of the land owners or any independent witnesses
and therein it had only been mentioned that since the petitioner did not
appear at the time of taking over of the possession, ex parte possession was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
17:19:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13140
5 WP-3704-2020
taken over which is a cyclostyle format having fill in the blanks, thus, it can
safely be said that the actual physical possession was never taken from the
petitioners and since the petitioners are still tilling or cultivating the crops
on the said land the entries made in the khasra for the year 2019-2020 in
the name of state govenrment is perse illegal. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hariram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 ,
the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are illegal and should be treated to
be abated in the wake of repeal of the Act of 1976 in the year 1999 with
effect from February, 2000.
Maharaj Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 2 November, 1976
31. The 'vesting' in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our view,
means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though
nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or
delivering possession. The court in Maharaj Singh v. State of UP
and Others (1977) 1 SCC 155, while interpreting Section 117(1) of
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950 held that
'vesting' is a word of slippery import and has many meaning and
the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project
the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning.
Smt. Jamna Bai Mehra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 23 September, 2004
13. This Court in Writ Petition No.18017/2010 parties being Smt.
Meera Bai and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
others, taking note of the law laid down by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Pathak and others Vs. State
of M.P. and others (Writ Appeal No.734/2008), has also
considered the scope of Section 10(5) of the Principal Act, which
reads as under:-
Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar vs Dy.Collector & Competent Auth.& Ors on 29 February, 2012
The fact which has been established is that no factual
possession was taken from the appellants and they continued to be
in possession till filing of the appeal which was filed on 24.6.2002
after coming into force of Repeal Act, 1999. In aforesaid
circumstances, the appellants were in possession of the land, as on
the date, on which the Repeal Act, 1999 came into force. In such
circumstances, it can very well be said that the proceedings were
pending on the date when the Repeal Act came into force. If the
appellants remained in possession of the land and their possession
was not disturbed, then they were entitled to retain the land and
the proceedings shall be deemed to have been abated [See:
Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar Vs. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority & others (2012) 4 SCC 718]."