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

1972 Supreme(MP) 122

P.K.TARE, SHIV DAYAL, K.K.DUBE
GRAM PANCHAYAT, GORAKHPUR – Appellant
Versus
KHUSHALI DINDAYAL SAHU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.C.VERMA, O.P.NAMDEO, R.S.DABIR

SHIV DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter has been referred to this Full Bench to interpret the phrase "subject to rules" in Section 244 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959. (hereinafter called the Land Revenue Code ). The Division Bench which referred this matter to us saw an apparent conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Ithoba v. Collector of Chhindwara, Misc. Petn. No. 277 of 1962, decided on 26-10-1962 = 1964 MPLJ (SN) 18 and Bhagwat Prasad v. Government of M. P. , 1966 MPLJ 557.

( 2 ) THE question before us is :--Whether the phrase "subject to rules made in this behalf" in Section 244 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959, connotes that until the contemplated rules are framed, the Gram Panchayat or the Tahsildar cannot exercise the power conferred on them for disposal of abadi sites. ( 3 ) THE words "subject to rules made in this behalf" or similar words are commonly employed in enactments, where the legislature contemplates framing of rules in exercise of delegated powers. We are of the opinion that that expression has to be interpreted according to the context in which it is employed. In each case the scheme and the provisions of the Act have to be examined.










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