Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 73A in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Ram Chand vs Union Of India (N.P. Singh, J) on 30 September, 1993
It was contended before Their Lordships that in the absence of a rule of limitation the power can be exercised only within a reasonable time as held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Kavi Mohamad Amin's case (supra) and two other decision i.e. State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, and Ram Chand v. Union of India, . While rejecting the contention that the orders cannot be executed after the lapse of 12 years, Their Lordships observed as follows:--
Section 31 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 84C in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 [Entire Act]
Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Uttam Namdeo Mahale vs Vithal Deo & Ors on 7 May, 1997
9. It is clear that the decision in Uttam Namdeo Mahale's case (supra) applies squarely to the present case. Therefore the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer rejecting the petitioners application attempting to set aside the execution process was rightly rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Even otherwise, it is not clear as if the petitioners were entitled to file an appeal under Section 73-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act which does not provide for any such appeal.