Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)
Neelabh Prakashan vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 17 March, 1999 cites

Purshottam Dass Tandon And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Lucknow And Ors. on 25 March, 1986

10. The petitioners before the Court contend that the persons who are getting affected by these Government Orders, framed, announced and published, in the face of the status quo orders of the Supreme Court, is detrimental, adverse, harassing and belligerent to those whose grants have expired, those who have applied for grants by way of lease, but are not receiving lease hold rights, though the matter was contested by the State respondents right up to the Supreme Court 1989 Supple (2) SCC 412, State of U. P. v. Purshottam Dass Tandon and the judgment of the High Court, AIR 1987 All 56, Purshottam Dass Tandon v. State of U. P. was affirmed. This shows that the State respondents had never intended to honour the judgment of the High Court and, thereafter, of the Supreme Court affirming the High Court's judgment. It is contended by these petitioners that they are not interested in freehold rights as they feel that grants by way of lease would be sufficient and within their means, as otherwise they cannot afford freehold rights. These are retired persons, pensioners, teachers, lawyers who are too old to practice, old families who financially have fallen on bad times, but have nowhere else to go, and cannot purchase freehold rights. It is contended that these are those who may be middle class or upper class who can maintain a standard of living on lease rights, but cannot take freehold rights. There are tenants among these classes; long term sitting tenants on properties, where the original owners are not available and they desire to be considered for grants of fresh leases and these are not being considered. It is brought to the notice of the Court that, while tenants are in properties for several years, even prior to the old Rent Control Act which was passed after the Second World War, land owners are selling Nazul grants to strangers and these grants are being converted into freehold rights. It is contended that strangers are being permitted to walk into lease lands with freehold rights, when tenants are being denied lease rights. This is resulting in eviction of tenants through muscle power by third parties who have nothing to do with the properties and are not progenies of the land owners. It is contended that if lease rights are being converted into freehold and the owners have no intention in staying on the properties, then, tenants at least should be considered for lease rights. It is contended that the Government Orders, issued during the pendency of the matters at the Supreme Court, has made provisions for nominees who may be strangers and even third parties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 26 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Mool Chand Yadav And Anr. vs Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, ... on 15 October, 1982

20. Continuing this submission, it is submitted that no one can say with certainty on what the decision of a Court will be. While pressing for a stay, the petitioners place before the Court a decision of the Supreme Court in re. Mool Chand Yadav v. R.B. Sujar Co. Ltd., 1983 All WC 121. In this regard, the petitioners contend that the Supreme Court had laid down the law on the conduct of parties, while a matter is under challenge and an appeal may be pending before a Court. In this case, the Court's attention is drawn to the observation of the Supreme Court that judicial approach requires that during the pendency of an appeal, the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. The operation of the order which the petitioners desire to be suspended are the Government Orders passed by the State respondents during the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of U. P. at the Supreme Court. While citing this case it is contended that in such situations where ultimately by these overt acts of the State respondents the situation may become irreversible, then, "if orders are challenged and appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal, Ibid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 298 - Full Document

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

21. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the State respondents had no business to frame public policies, by Government Orders, with the State's appeal pending and upon it a status quo order. It is contended that the Government Orders which have been issued in the face of a pending litigation is itself void. These Government Orders are neither for public good nor the public interest and it will injure the weaker sections who votes with majority but do not know where to have their say. The State is violating the rule of law when it is the cardinal principle in matters under litigation that lis pendenes the state of affairs are not to be disturbed and in matters of property transactions, transfers are prohibited, except under authority and leave of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. The State respondents are encouraging transfer of properties to third parties and strangers. The petitioners relied on a decision of the Supreme Court on this aspect in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath, AIR 1986 SC 1571 : (1986 Lab IC 1312) to submit that affecting property rights and converting grants into freehold rights will affect a section of society adversely, but give unfair advantage to those who are economically sound. The poor will remain poor and even be edged out from their habitats by the rich. One class has paid ratetable taxes and are rate payers for generations, while strangers will squat and edge out the poor and the rate payers. This policy by these new Government Orders in the face of Supreme Court's status quo orders is inequitable and opposite to public policy and law. The petitioners relied on a passage from the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, which reads at page 1612 (of AIR):
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document

Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985

22. This is one aspect of the matter, it is contended. The issue are yet to be debated before the Supreme Court and the State respondents cannot escape from this position. It is contended that now the main issue is what is the status of a grant made under the Government Grants Act, 1895. It is asserted that it is right by law. Such grants, that is to say, made under the Government grants Act, 1895 is the making of a lease by law. Such grants partakes the nature of law since it overrides even legal provisions which are contrary to the tenor of the document. For this purpose, the petitioners have relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in re-Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872. The petitioners contend that the fact that a grant had been made under the Act, aforesaid, is law and such grants cannot be defaced by Government Orders, and, in these circumstances, the State respondents should have, at least, had respect for the law that the grants upon which they were attempting to change the status quo in the face of a status quo order of the Supreme Court, could not be made by general circulars, even if no litigation is pending any where in any Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 103 - Cited by 688 - A P Sen - Full Document

Satya Narain Agarwal And Anr. vs The Government Of India And Ors. on 18 January, 1978

"In this connection, I have been directed to say that the steps be taken under the aforesaid amendment and modification being made applicable with immediate effect, and the policy should be given wide circulation and publication so that the concerned parties may understand its implied provisions and receive its benefits. All proceedings for freehold will be subject to the orders being passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 1557-59/98 filed by the State of U.P. against the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, dated 15-10-1997 in Writ Petition No. 32605/91, Satya Narain Kapoor v. State Government and Ors. This order is being issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department under its D.O. No. E-6-2286/Ten-98 Dated 28-11-1998."
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 August, 1990

In this regard about ascertaining on what a status quo order of a Court may imply, the Supreme Court has also reflected on the situation in re. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1987 SCC (Supple) 394 : (AIR 1988 SC 127). The Supreme Court observed that the proper course for a party would be in case any party was in doubt, to approach the Court (as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court) to seek clarification, if the party had any doubt on the meaning and effect of the status quo.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 78 - K N Singh - Full Document
1