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

1999 Supreme(Raj) 119

B.J.SHETHNA
Satyam Properties – Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.S. Singhvi, for Petitioner D.K. Parihar, for Respondent in W.P.no 783/98

Honble SHETHNA, J.–In this group of petitions, though separate notices issued for the plots in question by the respondents are challenged, but the parties are the same and the points raised in these petitions are also same, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2). Before dealing with the submissions raised by the learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioners in all these cases, I must state few important facts, which are as under:-

``(i) The petitioner-Satyam Properties is the sole petitioner in all these petitions.

(ii) The petitioner in all these petitions has challenged the impugned notice dated 18.11.1997 (Annex.6) issued by the respondent no.2, Collector (Stamps), Bhilwara calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount assessed, failing which the proceedings for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue be initiated against it. And, also the order dated 26/27.11.97 (Annex.7) issued by the Tehsildar, Bhilwara calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount in addition to other amount mentioned in the notice.

(iii) The plots in question is a part of big industrial property known as ``Duduwala Property in an industrial town of Bhilwa






























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