SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(SC) 161

A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Harishchandra – Respondent


Advocates:
A.M.KHANWILKAR, A.S.BHASME, N.M.GHATATE, S.B.Bhasme, S.V.DESHPANDEY

Judgment

RAY, J. :- Special leave granted, Delay in filing the application for special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution is condoned. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. The only question that poses itself for decision in this appeal is whether the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India can set aside the findings of facts arrived at by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Jalna pursuant to an order of remand made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, even though the Respondent No. 1 submitted to the order of remand without questioning its propriety and validity.

2. The Respondent No. 1 Harishchandra was the owner of survey Nos. 143, 144 and half portion of 161 situated at village Reogaon Taluka, District Jalna, Maharashtra. He was in statutory possession of the same under the provisions of S. 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenants and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The total land in his possession on the appointed day i.e. on 26th January 1962 when the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 came into force was 64 acres and 23 gunthas. In accordance with the provisions of S. 12 of the said Act, the Respondent No. 1 having in his possessi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top