Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.P. SINGH, C.P. SEN, JJ.
Fakirchand Kapoor – Appellant
Vs.
State of M.P. – Respondent
M.P. No. 453 of 1971 (J)
Decided on : 26-04-1978
1. The petitioners are residents of Burhanpur. Both the petitioners are owners of houses situated in Block No.6. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge Notification No.1957-1102-VlII-63 dated 25th July, 1963, issued by the State Government under section 98 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. fixing standard rates of assessment for Burhanpur town.
Held: The State Government determined the standard rates of assessment by fixing two different average annual letting values for each block; one average annual letting value was fixed for lands used for commercial or industrial purposes and another average annual letting value was fixed for lands used for dwelling house, in the same block. It is on the basis of these separate average annual letting value; that the standard rates of assessment were fixed. Section 98 of the Code and the relevant rules were construed by a Division Bench of this Court in Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., 1971 Revenue Nirnaya 95. It was held in that case that there has to be only one average annual letting value for each block and the standard rates of assessment have to be fixed under section 98 (3) with reference to this average annual letting value. In view of the admitted position in the instant case that two different average annual letting values have been fixed for the same block, it must be held that the fixation of standard rates of assessment was invalid being not in conformity with section 98 and the relevant rules
2. The petition is allowed. The notification impugned is quashed. 1971 RN 95 relied on.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
