Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)
Irfan Yakub Bholat vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 2020 cites

Jayaben W/O. Narayandas Nathumal ... vs District Collector And Ors. on 1 May, 2007

21. The reliance placed on the decision in case of Jayaben vs. District Collector, Vadodara (supra), is misconceived since the facts of the said case suggest that the purchaser of the land had already obtained NA permission, but did not carry out any non- agricultural use. In the instant case, indubitably, no NA permission is applied nor it is granted after 1999, when the land was converted from "new tenure" to "old tenure" for non agricultural use.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - D N Patel - Full Document

M/S Trinity Developers vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 19 July, 2017

4.6 While placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pravinkumar vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 (5) G.L.R. 4211 and judgment dated 14.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.15575 of 2015 (in the case of M/s. Trinity Developers vs. State of Page 6 of 31 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 01:07:24 IST 2020 C/SCA/16814/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Gujarat), learned advocate Mr.Shah submitted that once the premium is paid and collected by the State Government, it would mean that any restriction of the Government would not remain and hence, the petitioners are not required to pay the premium prevalent at the time of purchasing the land since the same was already paid in the year 1999 by Shabbir Ahmed Suleman.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Chhtrasang Dhulabhai & 9 vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 August, 2017

5.3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal placed reliance on the judgment dated 17.09.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.14416 of 2013 (in the case of Chhtrasang Dhulabhai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.) in support of his submissions. It was submitted that the aforesaid circular was considered by this Court and accordingly, this Court has held that the same would apply with retrospective effect as the restriction of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act can be said to have been removed upon prior sanction of the authority assailing the condition imposed by the order are not removed. It was submitted that condition No.1 mandates the procedure of the land to obtain non-agriculture permission under Section 65 of the Code, which was admittedly not fulfilled and, hence, the petitioners, who have purchased the land from his predecessor-in-title, are required to pay the premium as per the prevalent jantri rates.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - M R Shah - Full Document

Rekhaben Dhruvkumar Joshi & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 4 December, 2017

Similarly, in case of Dhruvkumar Girishchandra (supra), (judgment dated 29.042013 in Special Civil Application No.158 of 2013), this Court was confronted with the issue with regard to the demand of premium for two stages, one from new tenure agriculture to old tenure agriculture, and two, from old tenure agriculture to non-agriculture as per the prevailing rates.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - P Upadhyay - Full Document

Desai Pareshbai Vasantbhai & 19 vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 13 October, 2014

23. At this stage, I may with profit refer and rely upon the Page 23 of 31 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 01:07:24 IST 2020 C/SCA/16814/2018 CAV JUDGMENT judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jivrambhai Vasatbhai Desai vs State of Gujarat, 2010 (3) G.L.R. 2094. I may with profit extract the relevant observations of the Division Bench as thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - R H Shukla - Full Document
1