Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.32 seconds)
Kamlaben Dhayashankar Dave ... vs District Collector on 10 March, 2022 cites

State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969

23.In this connection, it would be profitable to refer to a leading decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors., (1969) 2 SCC 187. In that case, an application was filed by the land-owner under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 for converting agricultural land to non-agricultural use. The permission was granted. The Municipal Committee, however, objected to such permission and the Commissioner, in purported exercise of revisional power under Section 211 of the Code, set aside the order passed earlier. When the matter Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 10 23:52:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/5924/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2022 reached this Court, it was contended by the owners, that though Section 211 did not prescribe period of limitation, revisional powers ought to be exercised within a reasonable time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 726 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Manjibhai Nagjibhai Mangukia vs Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue ... on 14 August, 2015

In case of Manjibhai Nagjibhai Mangukia v. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and Others (Supra), the fact is entirely different to the effect that the land was sold by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thereto and respondent Nos.3 and 4 had also applied for NA, which came to be rejected by Deputy Collector. Subsequently, Deputy Collector review his own decision and granted permission to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which came to be challenged before this Court. It is a fact that there was a suit filed for cancellation of the sale-deed. Under the facts of that case, it was held that by virtue of sale-deed, the petitioner has seized to be owner of the land and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus to make grievance as regards to order of the Deputy Collector granting NA Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 10 23:52:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/5924/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2022 permission to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - C L Soni - Full Document

Ram Chand vs Union Of India (N.P. Singh, J) on 30 September, 1993

In case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin V. Fatmabai Ibrahim, (Supra), this Court in connection with other statutory provisions, and relying upon the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India [ 1994 (1) SCC 4] has impressed that where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 114 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar on 21 August, 1991

33. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in State of Punjab & Ors.. v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1. In Gurdev Singh, a suit for declaration was instituted by the plaintiff contending that the order dismissing him from service was ultra vires, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and void ab initio and he continued to be in service. Such suit, in accordance with the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, must be filed within three years from the date of passing of order or where departmental appeal or revision is filed from the date of dismissal of such appeal/revision. The suit was, however, filed beyond the period of three years. The High Court held that since the order was void, the provisions of Limitation Act would not apply to such order. The aggrieved State approached this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 472 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 Next