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

1981 Supreme(SC) 108

A.V.VARADARAJAN, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Kamlesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Syed M.Fazal Ali, J.

(1) THE short point taken by Mr Ashoke Sen in support of the petition is that even assuming that the finding of the prescribed authority that the transfer was not bona fide is correct, the prescribed authority was in error in not excluding the land said to have been transferred from the surplus area. The land which was the subject-matter of transfer was covered by Plot 460. The contention is well founded and must prevail. In these circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the High court and that of the prescribed authority and remit the case to the prescribed authority to decide the surplus land in accordance with S. 12-A.(d) of the Act by excluding the area which was the subject of transfer as far as possible.

(2) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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