Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)Section 18 in The Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors vs Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors on 2 September, 2009
17. The Supreme Court in another decision Mohamad Kavi
(supra) while considering Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 also held that the suo motu
powers should be exercised within a reasonable period and
looking to the transfer which took place during intervening
period in the year 1972 the suo motu powers exercised in
September 1973 was found to be unreasonable because by that
time investments were made by the purchasers and the key
decision of Patel Raghav Natha, AIR 1969 SC 1297 (supra) was
placed reliance as well as another decision Ram Chand and
Kumar Virender
2013.08.29 12:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP No. 14539 of 1990 10
others 1993 AIR SCW 3479 (supra) was also relied upon and
the suo motu power which was exercised under Section 84-C of
the said Act by Mamlatdar was quashed and set aside."
Smt. Dayawanti & Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 11 July, 2011
Learned
counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Smt. Dayawanti and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1)
HLR 368 and C.W.P. No. 895 of 1991 - Chandgi Ram vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 08.07.2013, wherein identical issue was
involved.
Preeti Srivastava (Dr.)& Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999
The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ranveer Singh
(deceased by L.Rs.) and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011
Madhya Pradesh 27, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil (supra), has held as
under: -
Section 9 in The Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969
(7) x x x x x
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 21, a person
who files an appeal or a revision against the order declaring his
land as surplus area and the appeal or revision filed by him
fails, shall be liable to pay, for the period he is or has at any
time been in possession of the land declared surplus to which he
is or was not entitled under the law, a licence fee equal to thirty
times the land holdings tax, recoverable in respect of this area."
No doubt, Section 18(6) of the Act uses the expression 'at any
time' but it cannot be indefinite time. The power has to be exercised
within reasonable time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat
(supra) has extensively considered the expression 'at any time' and after
construing expression 'at any time' has stated the law thus: -
Section 84C in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Collie ... vs K.Suresh Reddy & Ors on 19 August, 2003
17. The Supreme Court in another decision Mohamad Kavi
(supra) while considering Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 also held that the suo motu
powers should be exercised within a reasonable period and
looking to the transfer which took place during intervening
period in the year 1972 the suo motu powers exercised in
September 1973 was found to be unreasonable because by that
time investments were made by the purchasers and the key
decision of Patel Raghav Natha, AIR 1969 SC 1297 (supra) was
placed reliance as well as another decision Ram Chand and
Kumar Virender
2013.08.29 12:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP No. 14539 of 1990 10
others 1993 AIR SCW 3479 (supra) was also relied upon and
the suo motu power which was exercised under Section 84-C of
the said Act by Mamlatdar was quashed and set aside."
1