Category: State Laws

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Section 28(4) – Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Sections 4A(1), 15, 15(2) and 15(4) – Permission for development of building or land – Appellants had permitted the Project Proponents to construct housing complex at a location outside the demarcated area for five Townships HELD Project Proponents are also obliged to ensure compliance of ODP/Master Plan and if so complied, the Planning Authority cannot create any impediment – If the State accords approval to the deviation in terms of the FWA itself, the Project Proponents may be competent to carry on such a work – To put it differently, prior approval of the State for deviation from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA is the quintessence. Appeal allowed. d/19.05.2020

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 2(a) and 2(c) – Eviction proceedings – HELD Lease was in respect of three plots of land which did not contain any building and these plots of land do not satisfy the requirements of definition of “Government premises” within the meaning of Section 2(a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act. – Eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against respondent No.1 under the Act was without jurisdiction.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. &ORS. — Appellant Vs. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. &ORS. — Respondent ( Before : S.…

Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 – Section 14 – Grant of Lease – Counter-claim – High Court reiterated that it is the State which is the proprietor of all minerals beneath the land – There can be no dispute to the above proposition – HELD Additional evidence brought on record by the State before this Court which has been accepted on record fully support the counter-claim of the defendant – Counter-claim of the defendant-appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of courts below is to be modified – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GOA — Appellant Vs. NARAYAN V. GAONKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD It appears to us that the absence of a comma is a mistake and in fact according to us, a comma should be read after ‘shamilat’ and before ‘taraf’ in the latter part of the section also – Word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with all four­ ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ – A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’. In case the word shamilat is missing from any of these four terms, then the land cannot be said to be belonging to a group of people and could never become ‘shamilat deh’ land HELD This Court allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 03.07.2008 and the orders of all the authorities below – Name of the appellant be entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATRAM — Appellant Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Societies Act I960 – (i) Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 54(3), as special provisions for the appointment of the CEO of Cooperative Banks confer upon them the power to appoint their CEO (ii) However, where a Cooperative Bank is a Central Society within the ambit of Section 49-E(2), the CEO shall be appointed from among the officers of the cadre constituted and maintained under Section 54, where such cadre has been constituted. (iii) Where no cadre has been constituted under Section 54, the CEO of a Cooperative Bank which is a Central Society under Section 49-E(2) shall be appointed with the prior approval of the Registrar as stipulated in Section 49-E(2)(b)(ii).

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANAGING DIRECTOR CHHATTISGARH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK MARYADIT — Appellant Vs. ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Sections 31 and 32 – Change of land use from commercial to residential – Ujjain Municipal Corporation was not made a party and had no opportunity to represent their stand on the change in the layout plan – HELD It proper to direct the appellant-board and the authorities to ensure that the areas/land earmarked for the primary school and park/garden are not converted into residential plots – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. VIJAY BODANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sharad A. Bobde,…

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Sections 161 and 157-B – Transfer of lands by persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe – HELD there is clear bar under Section 157-B of the Act for transfer of land by a Scheduled Tribe even by way of exchange as the word “or otherwise” indicates. When there is a clear statutory provision barring the transfer, it was not open to the High Court to substitute its view in the place of that provision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AKHALAQ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer and A.S.…

Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 – Section 28 – Deposit of amount – Word “deposit” used in the Section, is to be understood and mean that deposit is to be made either, before making an application, or simultaneously with the application within the prescribed time of thirty days

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYAN YADAV (D) THR.LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and R. Subhash…

Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 – Sections 32, 32(2)(a), 34, 45 and 46 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 35 and 109 – Presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously – Presumption of truth attached to the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VERSUS SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…