Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.65 seconds)
Nav Sarjan Industrial Co-Op. Housing ... vs Secretary on 29 June, 2021 cites

Banda Development Authority Through ... vs Moti Lal Agarwal on 10 July, 2015

"14. The Respondent No.2- Competent Authority in its reply has specifically stated that the notice issued under section 10(5) was received by the Respondent No.2 on 31.08.1989 and thereafter, the possession of the land in question was taken over on 16.03.1990 by drawing the panchnama, the communication of which was also issued to the Respondent No.3Chhotubhai on 09.08.1990. Thereafter, the amount of compensation was also fixed under section 11 as per the order dated 20.08.1990. The mutation entry being No.1321 in respect thereof was made in the revenue record. Though it has been contended by learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kavina for the petitioner relying upon certain the documents annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in October, 2014 that the members of the petitioner Society were in possession of the lands in question, even after the said Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 02 20:38:25 IST 2021 C/LPA/197/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021 NAV SARJAN INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Versus SECRETARY & 2 other(s) possession was taken over by the State Government by drawing panchnama, the said submissions cannot be accepted. When the receipt of notice issued under section 10(5) of the ULC Act and taking over possession of the lands in question from the original owner Respondent No.3Chhotubhai has not been disputed by the said Respondent, the petitioner Society who had purchased the lands in question in contravention of the provisions of ULC Act, cannot be permitted to raise the contention that the possession was not taken over from the original owner in accordance with law. As per the position of law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar Vs. State of Panjab and Ors. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 212, and in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Motilal Agarwal and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394, when a possession is to be taken of a large track of land, then it is permissible to take possession by a properly executed Panchnama. If any person is subsequently found to be in possession of such land, such possession could not be said to be a legal possession.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

State Of Assam & Ors vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors on 27 November, 2014

In Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 02 20:38:25 IST 2021 C/LPA/197/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021 NAV SARJAN INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Versus SECRETARY & 2 other(s) this regard, a very pertinent observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321, is required to be reproduced, which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 133 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1