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

1993 Supreme(Guj) 327

R.A.MEHTA
THAKERSHI POPATBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.J.MEHTA, K.M.CHHAYA, K.S.Nanavati

R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) ). This petition arises in peculiar facts and circumstances and smacks of a huge scandal in valuable urban land of crores. The question raised is a simple and legal one. By an order dated January 16 1992 (Annexure-C to the petition) passed in revision under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Govt. revised the order of the Competent Authority declaring 31045 sq. mts. of land as surplus vacant land and the Govt. held that 24 individuals were entitled to hold 1500 sq. mts. each and therefore there was no surplus land. The order of the Competent Authority was passed on September 25 1986 and the Govt. in the revision filed after about five years on February 25 1991 passed the order of January 16 1991 The Competent Authority had held that the land was held by these persons as an association of persons and were entitled to one unit. The form was also filed accordingly. An application under Section 21 for exemption and sanction of the scheme was also filed by these persons as an association of persons and was rejected. Later on a case was put up that there was an unregistered partnership of 24 persons and















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