Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 47 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Ram Dular Singh And Anr. vs Babu Sukhu Ram And Ors. on 10 May, 1963
"Learned counsel for the appellants relying on a decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Dular Singh v. Babu Sukhu Ram, 1963 All LJ 667 : (AIR 1964 All 498) (FB) urged that, in any case, we should hold that when the appellants continued in possession of the disputed land after 30th June, 1951, they did so in exercise of the same right which they possessed on 30th June, 1951, as that right was not extinguished by their eviction from the land. The principle laid down by the Allahabad High Court in that case does not apply, because the decision in that case depended on the circumstance that, under the Tenancy Act the rights of a tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of the period of lease did not extinguish under Section 45 or 47 of the Tenancy Act which were the only sections which deal with the extinction of the rights of tenants. So far as the right granted by Section 47 (4) is concerned, it is granted by the statute itself for a limited period and once that period expires, it cannot be held that the right continues thereafter. There is no requirement in law that, after the expiry of that period, there must be eviction from the land in order to extinguish the right granted by Section 47 (4). The possession subsequent to 30th June, 1951 cannot, therefore, be held to be in pursuance of a right conferred on a sub-tenant referred to in Section 47 (4) of the Tenancy Act and, consequently, the land was not held by the appellants thereafter in the capacity mentioned in Section 19 (vii) of the Act."
Section 45 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Chobey Sunder Lal vs Sonu Alias Sonpal And Anr. on 19 May, 1967
It is now well settled by two Full Bench decisions of this Court in Ram Manohar v. State of U. P. AIR 1.968 All 100 and Chobey Sunder Lal v. Sonu, AIR 1969 All 304 (FB) that even an obiter of the Supreme Court is binding on this Court. The only requirement is that the observation made by the Supreme Court was not a stray observation but it was the considered opinion of the Supreme Court.
Section 3 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Birendra Pratap Singh And Another vs Gulwant Singh And Others on 31 January, 1968
22. Sri Shanti Bhushan, however, referred to Birendra Pratap Singh v. Gulwant Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1068. In that case, the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the effect of the provisions of Section 47 (4) of the Act.