Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
VRUNDAVAN CO. OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.
1. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 424 of 2021 is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, wherein the challenge was to the show-cause-notice dated ___.10.2020 (undated) being Ganot Case/Santej 84-C/02/2020 issued under Form-22 Rule 50 under Section 84B(1) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tenancy Act’ for the sake of brevity) by the Mamlatdar.
2. The contention of the petitioner society before the learned single Judge was that the land-in-question being Survey No. 1343 at Santej was purchased by the petitioner society alongwith other parcels of lands in the year 1982-1983. The subject land was sold by the vendors by a registered sale deed and mutation entries with respect to all the lands were posted in favour of the petitioner society. The case of the petitioner society, as noted by the learned single Judge, was that in respect of other parcels of lands namely Block Nos. 1339, 1114, 1109, 1110, 1123, 1254, 1261 and 1341, the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act were initiated and concluded in favour of the
The court established that suppression of material facts by a petitioner can undermine their legal arguments, and that notices issued under the Tenancy Act can be valid despite claims of delay.
It is now well-settled principles of law that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not invalidate an order in the event it is found that a power therefore exists
The Deputy Collector's notice issued beyond the one-year limit for calling records under the Tenancy Act was void, emphasizing the necessity of application of mind in such proceedings.
A tenant’s claim to agricultural land must be supported by substantial evidence; mere assertions without proof do not establish tenancy rights.
The court affirmed that the protected tenant's rights under the Tenancy Act cannot be overridden by private agreements or settlements that do not comply with statutory requirements.
The court affirmed that previous decrees extinguished the appellants' tenancy rights, and their subsequent claims constituted an abuse of legal process.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, in determining proc....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that actions under the Gharkhed Ordinance must be initiated within a reasonable time, and the concept of reasonable time is crucial in determini....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
