Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Section 2 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
State Of U.P. And Others Etc vs L.J. Johnson And Another, Etc on 8 September, 1983
17. These provisions came up for consideration before a single Judge of this Court in State of U. P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1978 All WC 156, who held that in such a situation Section 4(9) would not be attracted and the land occupied by the building and land appurtenant thereto will riot be included for computing the vacant land held by the person concerned. It was further held that Section 4(9) applies to cases where there are two different pieces of land, one vacant land and the other having a building with a dwelling unit therein. In other words it was held that Section 4(9) con templates the cases where a person holds vacant land and also holds some other land on which there is a building with a dwelling unit therein. But it does not contemplate a case where on a piece of land there is a building with a dwelling unit therein and some open piece of land. There should be two different pieces of land, one vacant land and the other having a building with a dwelling unit therein. The distinction becomes very clear after a reference is made to Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of the Section, besides the other provisions including Sections 6 and 8 of the Act.
The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P on 20 March, 1957
In Newspapers Ltd v. State Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1957 SC 532, 536 it was held by Kapoor, J. as follows :
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of West Bengal vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1962
In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241 it was held by Sinha, C. J. as follows :
Administrator General Of Bengal vs Kartick Chandra Mullick And Ors. on 30 March, 1931
In Administrator General of Bengal v. Premlal Mullick, (1895) ILR 22 Cal 788 (PC), it was held as follows :
1