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

1987 Supreme(Guj) 33

A.M.AHMADI
BIPINCHANDRA G. DALAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: M.A.BUKHARI, V.P.Shah

A. M. AHMADI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two petitions are directed against the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat in exercise of power conferred by sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter called the Code) whereby he cancelled the permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer Mangrol (hereinafter called TDO) under sec. 65 of the Code. The facts giving rise to these petitions briefly stated are as under.

( 2 ) THE first petition Special Civil Application No. 4577 of 1984 has been filed by two petitioners who had applied under sec. 65 of the Code for-permission to make non-agricultural use of the land bearing Survey No. 152/1 in Block No. 120 admeasuring about 4 acres 3 gunthas which they had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 20/07/1981 for Rs. 40 401 The case of the petitioners is that they were entitled to purchase the land in question since they themselves Were agriculturists The lands in question are situate in village Mota Borsava in Mangrol Taluka which falls in Zone III of the Industrial Zones created under the incentive scheme floated by the State Government under Government Resolution dated 22/12/1977. As the











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