Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Suo Motu – Appellant
Versus
Amrutlal Shankerlal Thakker Since Deceased Through Lh & 3 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional conflict between different judicial interpretations of tenancy law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. analysis of the legal status of the revised tenancy laws taking precedence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. importance of historical context in legislative interpretation of land laws. (Para 8 , 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. synthesized view of how state authority influences tenancy dispute resolutions. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This Civil Reference has arisen on an order dated 04.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in a Special Civil Application No.1664 of 1997 noticing two contrary views in the judgments of the learned Single Judge in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mahmad Yusuf Ahmed Nagani (Special Civil Application No.6943 of 1998 decided on 18.01.1999) and in Vallubhai Kukabhai Boliya vs. State of Gujarat and others – 2005 (2) GLR 1225, with regard to the jurisdiction of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to entertain and decide the revision application/appeal preferred against the order of the District Collector under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ord
The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal cannot entertain appeals against orders under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance as the relevant provisions were repealed, leaving the State Government with ....
The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals or revisions against orders under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949, following the repeal of relevant provisio....
The court ruled that summary eviction proceedings under the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance must be initiated within a reasonable time, and transactions deemed invalid under Section 54 remain valid unt....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1975 was not maintainable as the order was passed under Section 9-A, which was non-appealable. The j....
The court ruled that while the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act suo motu, the Joint Collector's revisional powers were valid in addressing fraudulent claims over government land.
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
