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

1985 Supreme(All) 485

R. K. SHUKLA, K. C. AGARWAL, A. BANERJI
Prakash Singh – Appellant
Versus
Prescribed Authority – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G.N. Verma

JUDGMENT :

A. BANERJI, J.

1. A learned Single Judge of this Court noticing some difference in opinions in two Division bench cares of this Court made a reference for the constitution of a Full Bench for consideration of the following two questions:

Whether the decision in Balwant v. State 1980 AWC 234 DB or the decisions Uma Shanker v. State 1980 AWC 487 DB, Sukhbir v. Prescribed Authority 1978 AWC 838 DB and Kedar Singh v. First Additional District Judge 1979 AWC 692 DB lay down the correct law on the question of the true meaning and scope of Section 31(3) of the U.P. Imposition of Celling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. XX of 1976) and Section 38-B of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as amended upto-date?

2. What is the true meaning and scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 31 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act (U.P. Act No. XX of 1976) with reference to the present case?

2. There was a suggestion in the referring order for the decision of the writ petition itself by the Full Bench. However, there is no order by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for doing so. But having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we thi














































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