Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.41 seconds)
Maniben Wd/O Naranji Kasanji Through ... vs Nagin Lakha And 2 Ors. on 25 July, 2005 cites

Navrangpura Gam Dharmada Milkat Trust vs Ramtuji Ramaji And Ors. on 18 June, 1993

14. So far as the decision of Division Bench in the case of Navrangpura Gam Dharmada Milkat Trust and Anr. v. Ramtuji Ramaji and Ors., (supra) is concerned the same has no application to the facts of the present case. The same was the case where in the initial proceedings under Section 32G of the Act, an order for possession was passed. Besides, that case had glaring difference on facts. That was not the case of a person, who was illegally dispossessed during the pendency of the proceedings. In the case on hand the respondent-tenant who was otherwise held to be a tenant in the year 1960, was dispossessed without following the procedure recognised under the law. This fact is clearly borne out from the order of the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 688 of 1986. The Deputy Collector has recorded that, 'in the year 1983 there was a so called compromise/ settlement between the land owner and the tenant' that, 'the said compromise/ settlement was, prima facie, for dispossessing the tenant', that, 'this shows that the possession of the disputed land was that of the tenant'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Gopala Genu Wagale vs Nageshwardeo Patas Abhishekh Anusthan ... on 12 January, 1978

17. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Gopala Ganu Wagale v. Shri Nageshwardeo Patas Abhishekh Anusthan Trust, Patas, . (supra) is concerned the same has no application to the facts of the present case as in the opinion of this Court the authorities below have not committed any error much less a manifest error which will warrant this Court to interfere with the orders of the authorities below, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present is not the case wherein interference is called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Manubhai @ Manibhai Parshottamdas ... vs Ramchandra Bhogilal Bhatt And Ors. on 30 August, 1988

15. Mr. Unwalla, learned advocate for the respondent-tenant invited attention of the Court to a decision of this Court in the matter of Manubhai @ Manibhai Parshottamdas Patel and Anr. v. Ramchandra Bhogilal Bhatt and Ors.s, reported in 1989(1) GLR 146, wherein this Court had an occasion to pronounce that, therefore, when the matter was remanded to the A.L.T., it was open to it to direct the landlords to hand over possession of the land to the petitioners and to determine the purchase price of the land. The A.L.T. has on the matter being remanded to it for fresh disposal held an inquiry and it came to an independent conclusion that the deceased was illegally dispossessed of the land between June 15, 1995 and March 3, 1973. It was under these circumstances that the A.L.T. directed the landlords to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioners. Under Section 32(1B) of the Act it was open to the ALT to suo motu hold an inquiry and if it came to the conclusion that the tenant was in possession of the land between the appointed day, i.e. June 15, 1955 and the specified day, i.e. March 3, 1973 it is open to it to direct the landlord to hand over possession of the land to the petitioners. Inquiry as contemplated under Section 32(1B) of the Act can be held simultaneously with the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act. There is nothing in the Act which prohibits such simultaneous inquiry.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1