Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
State Of Assam & Ors vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors on 27 November, 2014
The respondents have not taken possession in accordance with law. As
it is not in dispute that the respondentauthorities have not issued
notice under section 10(6) of the Act, the alleged taking over of
possession on 30.04.1991 by drawing Panchnama is no possession in
the eye of law, which can be reckoned to accept the plea of the
respondents. Further it is also clear from the material placed on record
that in Civil Suit No.1 of 2011 filed by the appellant petitioner in the
City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, Court Commissioner was appointed.
The Court Commissioner clearly revealed that the appellant petitioner
is in physical and actual possession of the land in question. For the
aforesaid reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has
committed error in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti
Sarma and others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321. From perusal of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of
State of Assam, it is to be noticed that the persons claiming possession
were third parties and when owners failed to challenge any
proceedings taken under section 10(5) of the Act, in the present case
when the very declarant before this Court challenging the orders of the
authorities, it is also to be noticed that when the order restoring the
writ petition and order allowing to raise additional pleas have become
final and merely on the ground that alleged possession was taken by
drawing Panchnama about 22 years back, is no ground to deny the
statutory benefits conferred on the declarant appellant under the
provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999. As much as we are of the view that no possession is taken in
accordance with law by issuing notice under section 10(6) of the Act,
we are of the clear view that the appellant petitioner is entitled to
have benefits under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. No steps can be taken further. All the
proceedings stand abated.
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Nasir Ahmad And Ors. vs King-Emperor on 12 May, 1927
17. In our opinion insofar as an election petition is concerned,
proper presentation of an election petition in the Patna High
Court can only be made in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 of
Chapter XXIE. No other mode of presentation of an election
petition is envisaged under the Act or the Rules thereunder and,
therefore, an election petition could, under no circumstances,
Page 6 of 9
HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:55:21 IST 2017
C/SCA/17364/2016 ORDER
be presented to the Registrar to save the period of limitation. It
is a wellsettled salutary principle that if a statute provides for
a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be
done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with
advantage : Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, Rao Shiv Bahadur
Singh V. State of V.P., Stae of U.P v. Singhara Singh.)
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16 August, 1963
17. In our opinion insofar as an election petition is concerned,
proper presentation of an election petition in the Patna High
Court can only be made in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 of
Chapter XXIE. No other mode of presentation of an election
petition is envisaged under the Act or the Rules thereunder and,
therefore, an election petition could, under no circumstances,
Page 6 of 9
HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:55:21 IST 2017
C/SCA/17364/2016 ORDER
be presented to the Registrar to save the period of limitation. It
is a wellsettled salutary principle that if a statute provides for
a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be
done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with
advantage : Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, Rao Shiv Bahadur
Singh V. State of V.P., Stae of U.P v. Singhara Singh.)
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Section 10 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Gjanan Kamlya Patil vs Addl.Collector & Comp.Auth.(Ulc) & Ors on 14 February, 2014
14. Further in the judgment in the case of Gajanan Kamlya Patil Vs.
Additional Collector and Competent Authority (ULC) and others,
reported in (2014) 12 SCC 523, while considering the provisions of
subsections (3) and (6) of section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under: