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

1980 Supreme(All) 569

R.M.SAHAI
Hari Bans Bahadur – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jagdish Prasad.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Sahai, J.

By way of these petitions quashing of Notifications issued u/s 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been sought on ground that land in dispute being situated in Municipal area, to which U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act I of 1950 does not apply, the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are inapplicable. There is no dispute on facts. But the opposite parties have attempted to save the Notification on applicability of U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The short controversy therefore, that arises for consideration, is whether U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applies to land situated in Municipal area or to an area where local bodies Act apply and to which provisions of U.P. Urban Areas ZA and LR Act have been applied.

2. In Badri Dube v. Commissioner Varanasi Dn. Varanasi 1969 AWR 317 it was held that provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were not applicable to an area where U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act does not apply. That was a case however where provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act applied, till then, and in such an area old Tenancy Act continued and as there was no Bhumidhar or sirdar or asami th




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