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

1994 Supreme(Raj) 934

V.S.KOKJE, V.G.PALSHIKAR
Dhanraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. - These three petitions raised a common question of law and hence are being decided by this common order.

2. Proceedings were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which came into force on 1.4.63 and under this Act, a land holder holding land in excess of ceiling area prescribed under Chapter was required to file a written-statement of his holding before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his statement before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota. By his order dated 12th April, 1975 (in writ petition No. 1906/81), it was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the petitioner holds 8.88 standard acres of land as surplus, he accordingly ordered for filing of option of lands to be retained by the surplus holder.

3. On 7th February, 1980, a notice was perpetuated to be issued under the provisions of New Ceiling Act i.e. the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 which came into effect from 1.1.73 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act should not be suo-moto revised. The power of suo-moto revision is vested in t









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