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

1991 Supreme(SC) 134

K.RAMASWAMY, N.M.KASLIWAL
Competent Authority, Tarana District, Ujjain (M. P. ) – Appellant
Versus
Vuaygupta – Respondent


(1) PROCEEDINGS under S. 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated against the respondents. A draft statement was notified as contemplated in Ss. (3 of S. 11 of the Act. No objection petition to the draft statement had been made on behalf of the respon- dents within thirty days, but it was filed only after the period of thirty days. This objection petition was rejected by the Competent Authority on the short ground that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under Ss. (3 of S. 11 of the Act and that S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not applicable to an objection petition filed under Ss. (3 of S. 11 of the Act. The respondents aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Competent Authority, filed a suit in the civil court agitating certain questions of title and also challenged the order passed by the Competent Authority. The trial court as well as the first appellate court held that civil court had no jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in Ss. (4 of S. 11 of the Act. The respondents then filed a second appeal before the High court. The learned Single Judge of the High court by










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