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

1998 Supreme(SC) 1016

M. M. PUNCHHI, A. P. MISRA, G. B. PATTANAIK
Arul Nadar – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer, Land Reforms – Respondent


Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 21-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant can derive benefit of the same, and if so, to what extent? When the matter was listed before a Bench of two Judges of this Court Their Lordships felt that there is a conflict between two decisions of this Court both rendered by two Hon’ble Judges, one in the case of V. Gopal Reddiar (dead) by LRs. & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.1, to which one of us was a party, namely (Hon’ble Punchhi, J., as he then was), and the other in the case of A.G. Vardarajulu & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.2, and that is how the matter has come before a three Judge Bench.

2. The appellant was the owner of 43.55 standard acres of agricultural land. He also purchased some land on 20.10.1961. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) came into force on 5.4.1960. A proceeding under the Act was initiated by the authorised officer who came to the conclusion that the appella










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