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

1998 Supreme(Guj) 309

M.S.SHAH
JIVIBEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: R.S.SANJANWALA, Sudhanshu Patel, T.H.Sompura

M. S. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition purporting to be a petition under Art. 226 of the constitution read with Art. 227 of the Constitution challenges the judgment and order dated 24-3-1998 passed by the State Government in Revision Application No. SRD/ con/ahmedabad/12 of 1995 under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner sold the land in question admeasuring 1 Acre and 2 Gunthas to respondent No. 3 herein by a registered sale deed dated 16-10-1978. The mutation entry to that effect being entry No. 1491 was made in the revenue record on 20-12-1978 and was certified on 8-10-1979. R. T. S. team was of the view that the land in question was a fragment and, therefore, the proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Collector on 13-6-1993. The Deputy Collector held by order dated 30-6-1993 that the land in question was a fragment and the transaction in question was in violation of Sec. 7 of the Act and was, therefore, void as per Sec. 9 of the act. The matter was carried in revision before the Government which remanded the matter for holding a detailed inquiry on the question

















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