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

1995 Supreme(SC) 270

B.L.HANSARIA, K.RAMASWAMY
Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar – Appellant
Versus
Vishwanath Pandu Barde – Respondent


Advocates:
A.M.KHANWILKAR, A.S.BHASME, V.N.GANPULE

( 1 ) ADMITTEDLY, the land bearing Survey No. 265 to the extent of I I acres 4 gunthas in Sangarnner Badurk Village, Ahmednagar District which belonged to the State government was allotted to first respondent, a tribal, in June 1960. The appellant had entered into an agreement with the tribal-allottee on 27/6/1968 initially to purchase 5 acres of land and later for the entire extent and sought permission for alienation from the Collector. Both the Collector and the Commissioner had refused to grant him the permission. The appellant approached the High court by way of a writ petition. The High court rejected the writ petition summarily. Thus this appeal by special leave.

( 2 ) SHRI Ganpule, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that the first respondent being a tribal was unable to cultivate the lands and so lawfully entered into the agreement to sell the lands for valuable consideration, subject to permission of the Collector. The District Collector was in error in refusing permission for alienation as the Bombay Revenue Code gives such a power. The appellant was inducted into possession of the land pursuant to the agreement and he remained in possession and is entitl









































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