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

1988 Supreme(Guj) 46

A.P.RAVANI, R.D.VYAS
HARESH KANTILAL VORA – Appellant
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY and ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, RAJKOT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: SURESH M.SHAH

RAVANI J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was one of the partners of the firm named Madhusudan Oil Mill Rajkot. The firm had purchased a piece of land admeasuring 2465. 10 sq. mtrs. by sale deed dated 27/10/1970 The land is situated within the limits of Urban Agglomeration Area of Rajkot town. On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (the Act for short) the firm filled in the form under Section 6 (1) of the Act. Before the competent authority it was contended that the partnership document dated 16/04/1971 was executed and as per this partnership deed individual partners were the co-owners of the land in question. Therefore individual holding of different partners was required to be taken into consideration and on this basis no one held the land in excess of the ceiling limit. The competent authority accepted the submission and ordered to file the form as per his order dated 10/10/1980

( 2 ) THE Government in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act issued show-cause notice dated 13/02/1984 and called upon the firm to show cause as to why the case should not be taken in revision. It was alleged that the firm was a person as defined under the Act. Therefo




















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