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

1998 Supreme(AP) 772

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Nampally, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
M. Vijayalakshmi – Respondent


( 1 ) IN order to prevent concentration of urban land in the hands of a few individuals, the Legislative, in its wisdom thought it prudent to introduce in the statute book the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. From the statement of objects and reasons , it appears that the Act envisages prevention of speculation and profiteering in the vacant land in urban agglomeration. Admittedly, the land is scarce and there is, in fact, a tremendous pressure in that regard, specially in urban areas. This legislation of 1976 is, however, a socialistic piece of legislation and has been introduced to subserve the common social aim and objective not to allow acquisition of excess land in the urban area. The Legislature felt the necessity of having such a legislation in order to subserve out constitutional goal.

( 2 ) THE object of the legislation being beneficial, in our view, the endeavour of the Law-Courts also should be to give effect to the intention of the legislation as far as practicable rather than thwart it since the Legislature is in a better position to appreciate the need of the society and the Law-Courts also exist for lhe society. In the event, however, the Law-Courts do










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