Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Section 31 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rama Ningappa Joshilkar vs Kirtikumar Pawatrao Desal And Ors. on 17 August, 1972
In Rama's case the learned Judge has held that a tenant need not make a formal proclamation of his desire to purchase the land under sub-section (1-A) of section 32-F, if proceedings are pending either before any Revenue Authority under the Act or in the High Court on the date of the advent of the Maharashtra Amending Act of 1969 (17th October, 1969) and the tenant has already expressed in these proceedings his desire to purchase the land. Both cases are thus clearly distinguishable of their facts. In the case before me, the first matter that came before the A.L.T. was the 32-G proceedings initiated in 1973. It is not the case of either party that any proceedings were pending before any authority before that year. The benefit in favour of the tenants conferred by the proviso to section 32-F(1-A) had already exhausted itself on 17th October, 1971 and it is an admitted position that before that date, the tenants had not expressed their desire to go in for the purchase.
Section 32G in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 32P in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Keda Kalu Wagh Patil vs Devidas Pandharinath Metkar on 22 March, 1972
In Keda's case it was held by Vaidya, J., that the benefit of the proviso to section 32-F(1-A) will enure even to a tenant against whom an order under section 32-P has already been made, but who has not been actually dispossessed.
The Amending Act, 1897
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 32 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
1