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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 202

SHAMSUDDIN AHMED
PRASANTA KUMAR SETH – Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL OFFICER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BHAKTIPRASAD GHOSH, BIKASH MUKHERJEE, PRADIP TARAFDAR, TARUN ROY

SHAMSUDDIN AHMED, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the validity of Section 4e of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (inserted by the West Bengal Land Reforms Amended Act, 1981) is under challenge.

( 2 ) WRIT petitioners' case in short is that Smt. Binapani Pal and Smt. Srilata Pal were the owners of 2. 53 acres of land in different plots described in paragraph 2 of the writ petition in Mouza Salap, J. L. No. 52, P. S. Domjur, Dist. Howrah. They purchased these lands in the year 1961-62 and since then using the land for non-agriculture purpose. They have divided the land into small plots for residential and commercial purpose. The area concerned has developed into a residential and commercial area. At times the lands in question were used as kitchen garden and vegetables were sometimes grown for domestic use. Out of these lands petitioners purchased several portions by registered deeds on different dates as narrated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. These purchases were made in the year 1980. The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale of the case lands and agreement for sale was executed. When they had been to the Sub-












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