Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Narayan S/O Tatayarao Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 June, 2012 cites

Sow. Kamalbai W/O Vilasrao Raje ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 9 January, 2003

14. Apart from the above, I find considerable force in the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners that, mother's share should have been excluded by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:39:41 ::: 23 wp2025.91 Jalna in Case No. 88/L.HR./ICH/CR-5 dated 13th March, 1990. It appears that, the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamalbai (supra), was not brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector or M.R.T. As per the said authoritative pronouncement, the mother is entitled for the share. Paragraph-7 and 11 of the said judgment reads thus :
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - B H Marlapalle - Full Document

Gowardhandas S/O Laxmandas Deceased ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And The ... on 24 June, 2008

. Yet in another judgment in Gowardhandas s/o Laxmandas deceased through his L.R. Vijaykumar s/o Gowardhandas vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2008(6) Mh.L.J. 571], this Court held that in a suo motu revision by Additional Commissioner, memorandum regarding revision issued on 30-11-1978 after declaration under Section 21 on 08-11-1976 but no notice was issued to the petitioner till 1992, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 30-03-1993 is beyond ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:39:41 ::: 22 wp2025.91 limitation prescribed under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - P R Borkar - Full Document

Lotan Fakira Patil vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 15 March, 2001

. Yet in another reported case of Lotan Fakira Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [2002(2) Mh.L.J. 255], this Court in the facts of the case held, notice U/Sec. 45(2) of the Act for suo moto revision was issued on 25-03-1982 and not within the period of three years from the date of order of S.L.D.T. dated 03-07-1978 and therefore the exercise of powers under the said provisions was beyond the period of limitation and therefore ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:39:41 ::: 21 wp2025.91 was without jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document
1