Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.44 seconds)
S. P. Watel And Others vs State Of U.P.(With Connected Appeals) on 28 March, 1973 cites

Durga Prasad vs Board Of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad And ... on 9 December, 1968

"held on a lease duly executed before the first day of July, 1955 for the purpose of erecting buildings thereon, but which is being used for the purposes of agriculture either by the bolder thereof 792 or by any person claiming under him." Clause (d) was passed in this form by the Legislative Assembly on December 3, 1956. The Bill then went to the Legislative Council. But before reaching there it was pruned by the Secretary of the Assembly. He deleted the last part of cl. (d) as passed by the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council passed cl. (d) as pruned by the Legislative Secretary. Thereafter the Bill received the assent of the Governor and of the President. It seems that the Secretary thought that the deleted portion of cl. (d) was redundant; and so he eliminated it. In Durga Prasad versus Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and others,(1) the Allahabad High Court has pointed out this history of cl. (d). The High Court has taken the view that s. 2(1) (d) is limited to lands which are being used for agricultural purposes. We have come to the same conclusion though for different reasons. On this construction of s. 2 (1) (d) it cannot 'be said that this provision is not connected with agricultural reforms. It would accordingly receive the protection of Art. 31A and would be immune from attack on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1