Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953
Section 8 in West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Sri Ramala Chowdhury & Anr vs Sri Suman Ghosh on 19 February, 2010
So far as the point of Urban Agglomeration is
concerned, this Court feels that even if the
observations of both the Courts below does not appear
to be correct, it hardly makes any difference in the
decision. The identical point arose before the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ramala
Chowdhury (supra), when the Court noticed the earlier
judgements holding in favour of non-applicability of
West Bengal Land Reforms Act in case of land
situated within the Urban Agglomeration.
Sabri Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Cts. Industries Ltd. . on 14 August, 2015
On the other point the identical question arose
before me in case of Sabri Properties Pvt. Limited
(supra) and this Court noticed the change in the
definition assigned to "raiyat" and "land" and held
that if it includes the homestead as defined under the
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, it is no
longer correct to say that the preemption under the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act should be restricted to
a land meant for agricultural purposes only in these
words:
Section 9 in West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Swapan Kumar Kar And Ors. vs Salil Kumar Dey And Ors. on 12 May, 2004
While dealing with the said
revisional application, this Court elaborately
discussed the legality of the decision rendered in
the case of Swapan Kumar Kar (supra) and
ultimately held that the decision of the learned
Single Judge in the case of Swapan Kumar Kar
(supra) is a judgment in per incurium as the said
judgment was delivered without taking note of
theprovision of Section 1 (2) of the West Bengal
Land Reforms Act which provides that the
provisions contained in the said Act is applicable
to the whole of the West Bengal excepting the
excluded area as mentioned therein.
Sk Verma vs Pk Jain And Another on 15 July, 2014
It admits no ambiguity to say that by using
the expression means and includes the
legislature intended to give a wider definition
that its grammatical meaning (See Sk Gupta v.
K.P. Jain reported in AIR 1979 SC 734). If the
definition of the raiyat remained unchanged i.e. a
person holding a land for agricultural purposes, it
could probably be argued that such inclusive
definition should be interpreted in tune with the
dominant purposes. Simultaneously the
definition of the raiyat was also changed by
excluding the word agricultural and the definition
which stood today does not restrict the land for
agricultural purposes but for any other purposes.
When the homestead is retained in an inclusive
definition and the predominant purposes, which
originally stood for agriculture, has been changed
to any other purposes, the restricted meaning
that the predominant purpose i.e. an agricultural
purpose should still be adhere to would frustrate
the intendment of the legislature which brought
the amendments subsequently."
1