Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (2.87 seconds)
Ravhjibhai Chhotabhai Patel vs Competent Officer & Dy Collector on 25 March, 2021 cites

Ravhjibhai Chhotabhai Patel & 3 vs Competent Officer & Dy Collector & on 9 June, 2015

20. The argument based on the premise of voluntary handing over of the possession within 30 days of the said notice­cum­order under Section 10(5) of the Act is, therefore, a misnomer. If the possession is handed over in compliance with the notice­cum­order under Section 10(5) of the Act to the State authorities or person nominated by the State, the proceedings under the ULC Act get concluded under Section 10(5) of the Act. If that is not done by the land owner in pursuance of notice­cum­order under Section 10(5) of the Act, whatever thereafter is done to take over the physical possession of the excess land in question, that can Page 38 of 43 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 26 03:27:05 IST 2021 C/LPA/941/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DT. 25.3.21 RAVHJIBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL v. COMPETENT OFFICER & DY COLLECTOR In Re: ULC Act, 1976 : Litigation by P/A : FB Followed only fall under Section 10(6) of the Act, which says that if any person refuses or fails to comply the order made under sub­section (5), then the Competent Authority may take possession of vacant land and may use such force as may be necessary for that purpose. Sub­section (6) does not require any other notice or order once again to be passed by the Competent Authority. It only envisages act of taking over the physical possession in the manner known to law including Panchnama process and presence of the owner of the land is not a condition precedent for such taking over of the possession. The last part of sub­ section (6) is only enabling and empowering provision for the Competent Authority who may use the force for taking over the physical possession, if there is any obstruction or hindrance created by anybody including the land owner in that process. Otherwise use of force is not necessary. Sub­section (6), therefore, is not of an adjudicatory nature, but it only provides for a physical process to take de facto possession with or without the use of force. Then the proceedings under ULC Act get concluded under Section 10(6) of the Act. Both these sub­sections are not necessary to be operated and invoked in each and every case. The proceedings under ULC Act can get concluded either under Section 10(5) or 10(6) of the Act as indicated above.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - K Thaker - Full Document

Babubhai Bhagwanji Mehta vs State Of Gujarat Special Secretary ... on 9 October, 2003

18. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the Appellants with regard to condonation of delay viz. in the case of Haribhai Lakhubhai Seedhav vs. State of Gujarat [2010 (2) GLH 97]; in the case of Babubhai Bhagwanji Mehta vs. State of Gujarat Special Secretary [2003 (0) GLHEL­HC 201089]; in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Dead) By LRs. [AIR 2009 SC 2577], etc. are all distinguishable on facts and in the peculiar facts of those cases merely because delay came to be condoned by the Court, the said cases have no application to the facts of the present case as ultimately it remains a matter of discretion for the Competent Court or Tribunal to look into the reasons assigned for delay in filing the appeal then fairly exercising such discretion either to condone or not to condone this such delay.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - R R Tripathi - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Y.Moideen Kunhi & Ors on 4 May, 2009

18. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the Appellants with regard to condonation of delay viz. in the case of Haribhai Lakhubhai Seedhav vs. State of Gujarat [2010 (2) GLH 97]; in the case of Babubhai Bhagwanji Mehta vs. State of Gujarat Special Secretary [2003 (0) GLHEL­HC 201089]; in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Dead) By LRs. [AIR 2009 SC 2577], etc. are all distinguishable on facts and in the peculiar facts of those cases merely because delay came to be condoned by the Court, the said cases have no application to the facts of the present case as ultimately it remains a matter of discretion for the Competent Court or Tribunal to look into the reasons assigned for delay in filing the appeal then fairly exercising such discretion either to condone or not to condone this such delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 56 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

23. Another judgment, which was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellants for condonation of delay, of the learned Single Judge in the case of Dahyabhai M. Patel vs. Competent Authority [1988 AIR 52 (Guj)] holding that the delay in filing the appeal under Section 33 of the Act should be condoned usually and liberal approach as adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji [AIR 1987 SC 1353] and the learned Single Judge condoned the delay in filing the appeal which was of 10 months.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next