This tag is associated with 7 posts

Stamp duty and penalty = Whether the sale deed executed by Aditya Mills Ltd. in favour of respondent No.1 could be treated as lease deed for the purpose of stamp duty is the question = unable to do so because neither party has placed on record copy of deed dated 29.9.1978 and without examining that document, it is not possible for us to record a firm finding about the nature and character of deed dated 3.5.1995. In this scenario, the only appropriate course is to remit the case to the Collector for fresh determination of the issue relating to valuation of the building and the land purchased by respondent No.1. Ordered accordingly.= The appeal is disposed of with a direction that the Collector shall call upon respondent No.1 to produce deed dated 29.9.1978, to which reference has been made in the deed executed in its favour by Aditya Mills Ltd. and then decide whether it is a lease deed simpliciter or a sale deed for the purpose of stamp duty. While disposing of the appeal, we consider it necessary to make it clear that if the Collector comes to the conclusion that the deed executed by Aditya Mills Ltd. in favour of respondent No.1 is a lease deed then the latter shall have to surrender the land to the Government of India on 9.3.2021, i.e., the date on which term of the lease would expire.

     published in     http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40595  NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6086 OF 2013. (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3749 of 2012) State of U.P. now Uttarakhand and another …Appellants Versus Vinit Traders and Investment Ltd. and another …Respondents O R D E R Leave granted. Whether the … Continue reading

Repeated acquisition of land of the same family = whether by resorting to repeated acquisition of the properties belonging to the same person, the State is not acting contrary to the dictates of Article 14 of the Constitution. This question was answered in the affirmative.= The real question is not whether the petitioners will be left with 4 or 5 acres of land or a bit more or, that whether they are running some business or not. where there was no other possibility of providing house sites to the persons displaced in a project and the acquisition is found so inevitable, such cases may fall under exceptions, warranting acquisition of the properties belonging to the same family more than once. = The State and its Officials should display a reasonable and rational attitude in dealing with the properties of the private citizens As held by the Division Bench in K.Ramulu (cited supra), in the quest for providing house sites to one section of poor people, others cannot be ruined. The petitioners have succeeded in proving that acquisition of their lands is not inevitable in the face of availability of the land admeasuring Ac.5-20 cents comprised in Survey No.449 belonging to Mente Narayana Swamy. Such being the admitted position, I do not find any justification, whatsoever, in the action of the respondents in insisting on acquisition of the petitioners’ land.

reported in/published  inhttp:// * The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy   + Writ Petition No.1449 of  2010   % Date: 21-12-2011 Between: # Thumurouthu Mallikarjuna Rao and another ….. Petitioners AND   $ 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (L.A.) Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. …..Respondents ^ Counsel for the Petitioners:                                  Mr.S.Subba Reddy ! Counsel for … Continue reading

INAMS ABOLITION ACT, LAND REFORMS ACT= “1. Whether an Inamdar who has been granted occupancy rights under the Inam Abolition Act can invoke Section 41 to recover possession from a person who is not a tenant of the land in question? 2. Whether the order passed by the Tahsildar is sustainable on merits?”= ONCE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS HAS GIVEN , ALL MORTGAGES MADE BEFORE THE INAMS ABOLITION ACT WERE DEEMED TO BE DISCHARGED OR WIPED OFF. FOR IMPLEMENTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS, THE TAHSILDAR HAS GOT JURISDICTION UNDER LAND REFORMS ACT TO EVICT THE UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS FROM THE LANDS=Since it was extensively pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 1.2.2005, as well as in the present impugned order highlighting the malpractices indulged in by the Tehsildar, while passing the order directing possession in favour of the appellant and while upholding the order of the learned Single Judge referred to above, the order of remand passed by the learned Single Judge stands restored. We, however, make it clear that the only issue which can be examined by the Tehsildar can be with regard to the claim of the appellant for restoring possession based on the grant of occupancy rights in its favour, by the proceeding dated 11.2.1993. It is further made clear that this order of remand to the Tehsildar, shall not entitle the respondents to raise any issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar, in particular, based on the mortgages of the year 1955 and 1967. 19. The appeals stand allowed with the above directions. In light of the fact that the issue is pending for nearly two decades, we direct the Tehsildar to hear the parties and after giving due opportunity to put forth their submissions, pass final orders in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.


agency area and agency courts= the suits are to be instituted before the specialized authorities in agency areas, the procedure for adjudication of those suits is similar to the suits filed under C.P.C. Issues are required to be framed, based upon the pleadings, the parties are permitted to adduce evidence and the concerned authority discharging the functions of the Court can render its judgment. In the instant case, the appellants herein presented a plaint claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondents on their part filed a written statement. The Agent to Government ought to have framed an issue and then permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Instead, a report was called for from the Tahsildar. Such a course is totally impermissible in law. To certain extent, the appellants had also contributed for the improper disposal of the appeal. Based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the appellants have amended the plaint schedule. Taking these developments into account, the Agent to Government dismissed the suit, leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the further remedies. The procedure adopted by the Agent to Government was not at all correct. He ought to have permitted the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the matter on merits. There was absolutely no justification to dispose of the suit without recording any evidence. On this short ground, the A.S. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, Kakinada for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after recording evidence.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY   A.S.No.1014 of 2010   JUDGMENT:   The parties hail from a scheduled area in East Godavari District.  The appellants filed O.S.No.10 of 2008 before the Agent to Government, East Godavari District at Kakinada against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 in … Continue reading

caste certificate – blessings in disguise = we find that the appellant belongs to `Koli’ tribe and it was in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (supra) that it was held that `Mahadeo Koli’ and `Koli’ were not one or the same tribe and that `Koli’ tribe is not a Scheduled Tribe and the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (supra) has been relied upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment in this case to hold that the appellant did not belong to `Mahadeo Koli’ tribe. Before the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (supra), the appellant had been appointed in the service of NABARD on 28.02.1992 and since 1992 for long nineteen years, he has been in service. Invoking our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, we order that the initial appointment of the appellant in the service of NABARD will not be disturbed, but the appellant will not be granted any

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7857 OF 2004 Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao … Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 05.082003 of the Bombay High Court … Continue reading

service matter =The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, first respondent holds examinations for direct recruitment to State and subordinate service posts under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules 1962 (`Rules’ for short). Appellant appeared as an `open market candidate’ in the 1983 examination and was selected to Rajasthan Tehsildar Services (Subordinate service) and = Sub-rule 1 of Rule 11 of Rules provided that the number of chances which a candidate appearing at the examinations can avail of, shall be restricted to three, for direct recruitment to posts specified in Schedules I and II of the Rules. The said rule was amended by notification dated 30.3.1990 whereby the ceiling in regard to the number of chances to appear in the examination was relaxed by increasing it from 3 to 4 examinations.= Having regard to the bar contained in Rule 4(2)(v), the appellant could not have appeared for the examination for the year 1990, as an NGE candidate, as by then he had appeared only thrice as an open market candidate and had not exhausted all the four chances as an open market candidate.

Not Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8399 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.27941/2008] Ashok Kumar Jain … Appellant Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through its Chairman & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted. 2. The Rajasthan … Continue reading

Mysore (Religious and Charitable Inams) Abolition Act, 1955: Inam lands – Granted to eldest son with the consent of brother and other family members – Partition – Held: Inam lands cannot be regarded as individual property of grantee – In terms of provisions under the 1955 Act, inam lands liable to be granted to tiller of such lands who may be an archak/tenant/office bearer – Such grant is meant for benefit of family of tiller and not for his individual benefit – Thus, grant of land in favour of the eldest son, with the consent of other members of the family could not disentitle other members to exercise their right to claim share in the property/lands – Moreover, lands Tribunal granted occupancy right to grantee because his father was Archak of the temple and not because the conditions as laid down in s. 6(A) of the Act are fulfilled – Occupancy right, as granted to him, was not his individual right – Hence, the lands in question available for partition. Father of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was serving as an Archak in a temple and had been cultivating the inam lands attached to the temple. After his death, the lands were granted by the authority to respondent No.1, the eldest son, with the consent of other members of the family. Respondent No.1 was also acting as the Manager of the ancestral and self-acquired property of his father. Appellant, son of respondent No.2, issued a legal notice to respondent No.1 demanding partition of the joint family properties including inam lands. Respondent No.1 refused to partition the immovable properties. The appellant filed a suit for partition claiming his share in the properties along with mesne profits. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that prior partition was established in view of the admission by respondent No.2 and as such the appellant could not demand partition. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the High Court. Review petition was also dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that in respect of inam lands granted to respondent No. 1, the High Court had committed an error by holding that since the appellant and the respondent No.2 had not performed the duties as archak of the Inamdar Temple and they had not personally cultivated the lands, they were not entitled to grant of the inam lands. Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that respondent no.1 had got the properties, imam land in question, vacated from the tenants who had been cultivating it and thereafter he was personally cultivating the same and after coming into force of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable Inams) Abolition Act, an application for grant of occupancy rights was moved on his behalf and the right was conferred on him by the competent authority after proper inquiry and therefore, the appellant could not claim partition of the same; that respondent no.1 was admittedly the archak of the temple and he was also cultivating the properties personally for a continuous period of 3 years prior to the date of its vesting with him and therefore, he was entitled to apply for registration of his right in terms of provisions of the Act; and that the grant of such right is a personal right which cannot be characterized as an ancestral right because in this case, even if his father was alive, he could not have become entitled to grant of occupancy rights because he was not cultivating the lands. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Under the scheme of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition) Act, inam lands are liable to be granted to the tiller of such lands, be, as it may, as tenants, archaks or office bearers of the inamdar temple. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that such grants are meant for the benefit of the family of the tiller and not for him individually and for this reason, there can be no justification to disregard the rights of the junior members of the family if their eldest member was performing the duties of archak with the consent of others. For this reason and in view of the decision of this court in the case of Nagesh Bishto, this Court is of the view that grant of land to archak cannot disentitle the other members of the family of the right to the land and such granted land, therefore, is also available for partition. Furthermore, it also emerges from the judgment of the Trial Court that the tenants cultivating the land had stated that respondent no.2 had requested his father to allow him to cultivate the lands who accordingly gave his consent before the land tribunal also. Such being the position, if other members of the family had not objected to his becoming the archak of the temple because he was the eldest and also allowed him to cultivate the lands then, if subsequently he was, by virtue of the fact that he was the archak and also personally cultivating the lands, granted the lands, he cannot take away the rights of such other members of the family in the granted lands. (Para -13) [474-G-H; 475-A-D] Nagesh Bishto Desai Vs. Khando Tirmal Desai etc. (1982) 2 SCC 79 – relied on. 1.2 It is pellucid that respondent No.1 is relying only on Section 6A of the Act to submit that he was granted the occupancy rights. It is clear from Section 6A of the Act that respondent No.1 satisfied the conditions enumerated therein and for that reason, he was granted the occupancy rights. If seen in isolation, conclusion would be that since respondent No.1 had fulfilled the conditions of Section 6A of the Act, he was granted the occupancy rights and the question of bringing the other family members did not arise. However, this Court is not inclined to look at Section 6A in isolation. If seen in totality, it is discernible that the father of respondent No.1 gave his consent and allowed respondent no.1 to cultivate the land after taking the same from the tenants. Even the land tribunal, while passing the order granting occupancy rights, had not confined itself to the fact that the conditions in Section 6A were fulfilled. Rather, the land tribunal had observed that the father of respondent No. 1 was the archak and anubhavdar of the temple and this was a prime consideration in granting occupancy rights to the respondent No.1. Therefore, it would be wrong to hold that simply because the conditions in Section 6A were fulfilled, the respondent no. 1 was granted occupancy rights and it was his individual rights. The truth is that the respondent No.1 became the Archak after the death of his father because he was the eldest in the family and only then came the question of satisfying the conditions of Section 6A of the Act. (Para – 14) [475-E-H; 476-A-B] 1.3 It is wrong on the part of respondent No.1 to say that his father, even if he had been alive, would not have been granted occupancy rights because the lands at that time were cultivated by the tenants. For grant of occupancy rights, personal cultivation is just one condition. The other conditions include that if a person is managing the properties, which his father was doing, would also be entitled to the grant of occupancy rights. (Para – 15) [476-C-D] 1.4 Respondent No. 1 was made archak after the death of his father because he was the eldest member of the family. Being the archak, he cultivated the lands and obtained occupancy rights. In such circumstances, it would be highly unjust to deprive the other members of the family from getting their share in the properties by relying only on Section 6A of the Act. Therefore, this Court is also of the opinion that the granted lands are also available for partition and grant of occupancy to one member will not disentitle the other members. (Para – 15) [476-D-F] Appi Belchadthi & Ors. vs. Sheshi Belchadthi & Ors. (1982) 2 Karnataka Law Journal 565 – approved. Case Law Reference (1982) 2 SCC 79 Relied on Para – 12 (1982) 2 Karnataka Law Journal 565 Approved Para – 15 S.B. Sanyal, Rajesh Mahale for the Appellant. A.K. Ganguli, S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5646 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21197 of 2006) K.V. Sudharshan …Appellants VERSUS A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors. …Respondents JUDGMENT TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and final order … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,651 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com