Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (2.44 seconds)Section 22 in Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Section 23 in Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj on 26 March, 1962
As has been stated by this Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Anand Maharaj 1963 (1) Supreme
Court Reports p.1, "When a language is plain and unambiguous
and admits of only one meaning no question of construction
of a statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself."
Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd. And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 13 April, 1989
The question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the provisions of Section 21-A of the
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,
1961, would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case
and the appellant can derive benefit of the same, and if so,
to what extent? When the matter was listed before a Bench
of two judges of this Court Their Lordships felt that there
is a conflict between two decisions of this Court both
rendered by two Hon'ble Judges, one in the case of V. Gopal
Reddiar (dead) By Lrs. & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors. - 1995 Supp.
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970
The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
A.G. Varadarajulu & Anr vs The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 23 March, 1998
In Vardarajulu (supra) the
question for consideration was whether Section 21-A
overrides Section 3(42)? Section 3(42) defines Stridhana
Land to mean any land held on the date of commencement of
the Land Reforms Act by any female member of a family in her
own name. The expression 'held' would have its meaning from
Section 3(19) which defines 'to hold land'. Section 21-A
has absolutely no connection with Section 3(42) in as much
as under Section 21-A the legislature recongnises certain
transfers made between 15-2-1970 and 2-10-1970 to be valid.
But if the transfer or had no right to transfer question of
legislature validating such transfer would not arise. In
Varadarajulu's case (supra) the said question really arose
for consideration and this Court held that since the
transferer was not holding the land as 'Stridhana land' the
provisions of Section 21-A will have no application.