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

1986 Supreme(Bom) 185

V.A.MOHTA, H.W.DHABE, G.G.LONEY
Madhukar s/o Purshottam Patil – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---By consent of parties we have formulated the following three points for consideration in this reference :

(1) Whether the terms "the object of the Amending Act, 1972" in section 10(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, means the Amending Act as Amended by Act No. 47 of 1975 ?

(2) Whether section 10(1) is attracted in respect of a transfer between 26-9-1970 and 2-10-1975 by a "member of a family unit". Who separately held land prior to 26-9-1970 ?

(3) Whether in case of a family unit in existence on 2-10-1975 section 10(1) is attracted in respect of a transfer between 26-9-1970 and 2-10-1975 by a "member of a family unit" whose individual holding is below the ceiling limit but aggregate holding of the family unit is in excess of the ceiling limit on the commencement date ?

2. The basic factual backgrounds :

A. "family unit" consisted of Madhukar Patil, his wife Sau. Mandakini and a minor son Manoj. All the three members of the family unit separately held, since before 26-9-1970, near about 116 acres, 56 acres and 57 acres of land respectively. Considering the extent of Pot-Kharab land of Mandakini and Manoj they held land









































































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