Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.60 seconds)Section 5 in Children Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Narbada Prasad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 10 February, 1981
12. This Court would now consider the challenge to the
order passed by the Board of Revenue on 28-4-1989
(Annexure P-8) on the anvil of the law laid down and
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The
Authorised Officer, Thanjavur and another vs. S.
Naganatha Ayyar, etc., (supra) and Ambika Prasad Mishra
vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) and by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Narbada Prasad vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others (supra). In paragraph 2 of
the impugned order, while discussing the earlier order
of the Additional Commissioner passed on 8-9-1977
declaring the subject sale-deed dated 2-2-1972 as void,
it has been observed by the Board of Revenue that the
said transaction was made on a meager consideration and
no valid reason for alienating such a large area of
land has been demonstrated and that the transaction has
been made to defeat the provisions of the Act, 1960.
It has further been observed that once the subject
transaction has been declared void by the Additional
Commissioner on 8-9-1977 in exercise of powers under
Section 4 of the Act, 1960 and thereafter it proceeded
to issue final draft under Section 11(6) of the Act,
1960, the Additional Commissioner could not have
reconsidered the validity of the transaction to treat
it as a genuine transaction not for defeating the
provisions of the Act, 1960.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Children Act, 1960
The Authorised Officer, Thanjavur & Anr vs S. Naganatha Ayyar on 4 May, 1979
12. This Court would now consider the challenge to the
order passed by the Board of Revenue on 28-4-1989
(Annexure P-8) on the anvil of the law laid down and
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The
Authorised Officer, Thanjavur and another vs. S.
Naganatha Ayyar, etc., (supra) and Ambika Prasad Mishra
vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) and by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Narbada Prasad vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others (supra). In paragraph 2 of
the impugned order, while discussing the earlier order
of the Additional Commissioner passed on 8-9-1977
declaring the subject sale-deed dated 2-2-1972 as void,
it has been observed by the Board of Revenue that the
said transaction was made on a meager consideration and
no valid reason for alienating such a large area of
land has been demonstrated and that the transaction has
been made to defeat the provisions of the Act, 1960.
It has further been observed that once the subject
transaction has been declared void by the Additional
Commissioner on 8-9-1977 in exercise of powers under
Section 4 of the Act, 1960 and thereafter it proceeded
to issue final draft under Section 11(6) of the Act,
1960, the Additional Commissioner could not have
reconsidered the validity of the transaction to treat
it as a genuine transaction not for defeating the
provisions of the Act, 1960.