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

1996 Supreme(Guj) 162

J.N.BHATT
PATEL JIVIDAS TRIKAMDAS – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR,mehsana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.G.URAIZI, P.M.THAKKAR

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) WHETHER an illegal transaction or sale in contravention of the provisions of law could be questioned or revoked or cancelled after a lapse of several years is the heart of the present petition under Arts. 226/227 of the constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioners had purchased land admeasuring 2 acres in block No. 1029 of 1993 of Village Dingucha, Tal : Kalol, Mehsana District from respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 by registered sale deed dated 6-6-1968. Since then, according to the case of the petitioners, they are in possession of the said agricultural land and they have spent huge amount for the development and for taking crops every year.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1, District Collector, had initiated proceedings under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1947 (Act) in the year 1987, i. e. , after 19 years for declaring the aforesaid sale transaction as invalid being in violation of the provisions of the Act and show cause notice was issued. Thereafter the petitioners were heard. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances and the provisions of the Act, the respondent No. 1 - Collector passed the impugned order on 30-7










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