Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.45 seconds)
Somaji Maganji Thakore vs Kantiji Bhalaji Thakore on 8 March, 2022 cites

Koli Nagjibhai Varjan vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 6 November, 1990

5.17 It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that both the Collector and Deputy Collector, have dismissed the matter since the issue was being agitated after a long lapse of 16 years and the authorities concerned, have come to the conclusion that the proceedings are barred by limitation. Once it is held that the proceedings are time barred, there is no question of going into Page 12 of 40 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:26:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/18273/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/03/2022 the merits of the matter. It is also submitted that the SSRD, has committed an error in relying upon the judgments which are no longer a good law in view of the judgment in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar v. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein, in paragraph 6.3, reference has been made of both the judgments referred to by the SSRD namely judgment in the case of Koli Nagjibhai Varjan v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (1) GLR 14 and judgment in the case of Patel Jividas Trikamdas & Ors. v. Collector & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) GLR 688. It is submitted that it has been clearly held that even a void order is required to be set aside and therefore, the sole reasoning of the SSRD that it is a void order and therefore, there arises no question of invoking the limitation or doctrine of reasonable time, is based on overruled judgments. The order of the SSRD, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled principle and it committed an error in entering into the merits and the question of title, which otherwise, was not within the scope and purview of the SSRD in the RTS proceeding. It is therefore urged that the order of the SSRD be quashed and set aside and the order dated 5.9.2015 passed by the Collector and order dated 24.7.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, be confirmed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Pune Municipal Corporation vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 February, 2007

7.6 It is submitted that the reliance placed on the judgments in the cases of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim (supra); Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra (supra); Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport (supra); Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar v. State of Gujarat (supra) is misplaced. The said judgments deal with suo motu exercise of revisional powers by the authorities. It is submitted that the respondents have far superior case except the aspect of delay of 16 years. Eventhough, there is no partition deed, no registration and no document, entry has taken place.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 110 - Full Document

Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar vs State Of Gujarat on 16 February, 2021

5.17 It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that both the Collector and Deputy Collector, have dismissed the matter since the issue was being agitated after a long lapse of 16 years and the authorities concerned, have come to the conclusion that the proceedings are barred by limitation. Once it is held that the proceedings are time barred, there is no question of going into Page 12 of 40 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:26:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/18273/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/03/2022 the merits of the matter. It is also submitted that the SSRD, has committed an error in relying upon the judgments which are no longer a good law in view of the judgment in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar v. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein, in paragraph 6.3, reference has been made of both the judgments referred to by the SSRD namely judgment in the case of Koli Nagjibhai Varjan v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (1) GLR 14 and judgment in the case of Patel Jividas Trikamdas & Ors. v. Collector & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) GLR 688. It is submitted that it has been clearly held that even a void order is required to be set aside and therefore, the sole reasoning of the SSRD that it is a void order and therefore, there arises no question of invoking the limitation or doctrine of reasonable time, is based on overruled judgments. The order of the SSRD, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled principle and it committed an error in entering into the merits and the question of title, which otherwise, was not within the scope and purview of the SSRD in the RTS proceeding. It is therefore urged that the order of the SSRD be quashed and set aside and the order dated 5.9.2015 passed by the Collector and order dated 24.7.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, be confirmed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - V Kothari - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Dipakkumar Bhagvandas Shah on 3 October, 2019

In this connection, on behalf of the Appellant reliance was placed on a judgment of Justice S.B. Majmudar (as he then was in the High Court of Gujarat) in State of Gujarat v. Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah disposed of on 1-3-1990, where in connection with Section 84-C itself it was said that the power under the aforesaid section should be exercised within a reasonable time.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Patel Jividas Trikamdas And Ors. vs Collector And Ors. on 2 April, 1996

5.17 It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that both the Collector and Deputy Collector, have dismissed the matter since the issue was being agitated after a long lapse of 16 years and the authorities concerned, have come to the conclusion that the proceedings are barred by limitation. Once it is held that the proceedings are time barred, there is no question of going into Page 12 of 40 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:26:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/18273/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/03/2022 the merits of the matter. It is also submitted that the SSRD, has committed an error in relying upon the judgments which are no longer a good law in view of the judgment in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar v. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein, in paragraph 6.3, reference has been made of both the judgments referred to by the SSRD namely judgment in the case of Koli Nagjibhai Varjan v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (1) GLR 14 and judgment in the case of Patel Jividas Trikamdas & Ors. v. Collector & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) GLR 688. It is submitted that it has been clearly held that even a void order is required to be set aside and therefore, the sole reasoning of the SSRD that it is a void order and therefore, there arises no question of invoking the limitation or doctrine of reasonable time, is based on overruled judgments. The order of the SSRD, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled principle and it committed an error in entering into the merits and the question of title, which otherwise, was not within the scope and purview of the SSRD in the RTS proceeding. It is therefore urged that the order of the SSRD be quashed and set aside and the order dated 5.9.2015 passed by the Collector and order dated 24.7.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, be confirmed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sulochana Chandrakant Galande vs Pune Municipal Transport & Ors on 3 August, 2010

7.6 It is submitted that the reliance placed on the judgments in the cases of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim (supra); Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra (supra); Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport (supra); Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar v. State of Gujarat (supra) is misplaced. The said judgments deal with suo motu exercise of revisional powers by the authorities. It is submitted that the respondents have far superior case except the aspect of delay of 16 years. Eventhough, there is no partition deed, no registration and no document, entry has taken place.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 145 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Lalsing Kacharaji Solanki (Palvi ... vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2019

It is submitted that so far as the judgments relied upon in the cases of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat reported in (2005) 2 GLR 1370; Nirmalaben @ Nilaben Ratnasinh Chauhan W/o. Takhatsinh Dansinh Thakor v. State of Gujarat (supra); Pagi Aataji Kacharaji v. State of Gujarat (supra) also cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - S H Vora - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next