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

1987 Supreme(Guj) 102

A.P.RAVANI
PATEL GORDHAN KADVABHAI – Appellant
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY and ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR,rajkot – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.R.NANAVATI, M.I.HAVA

A. P. RAVANI, J.

( 1 ) NOT the integrated whole of the person but different disintegrated component parts of the person be recognised as separate entity and he served with a show-cause notice and be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Such is the plea raised by the petitioners who are different component parts of an association of individuals a person. Can such a plea be upheld ?

( 2 ) THE petitioners along with respondent No. 3 purchased a piece of vacant land situated within the Urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. The land admeasured about 13861 sq. m. It appears that the land was purchased some time in the year 1966 by a registered sale deed executed in favour of petitioners and respondent No. 3. After the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 came into force respondent No. 3 filled in form under the provisions of Sec. 6 (1) of the Act. In the form it was declared that the form was filled in on behalf of himself and on behalf of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was treated by the Competent Authority that the form was filled in by an association of individuals and respondent No. 3 throughout the proceedings represented the association of ind















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