Category: State Laws

Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 – Section 2(v), 3 and 4 – Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the Act and if the government notification regarding “ghee” followed proper procedure – The court upheld that “ghee” is indeed a “product of livestock” and the 1994 government notification was valid – The court ruled that market fees must be paid for “ghee” from 1994 to 2009, with provisions for installment payments.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against the statutory mandate of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) – Slum society or private Developer cannot dictate terms to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and it must act in terms of its own policies and circulars – Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has to act in terms of its own policies and circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy especially a policy which is welfare based.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 – Section 8A – Cancellation of caste certificate – Jurisdiction of State Scrutiny Committee – HELD the fact remains that it being a procedural law and the matter being still pending before the Committee to be decided on merits after it had opined that the Committee had jurisdiction to deal with even the cases of caste certificate, it could very well be examined by the Committee at this stage – In the view of that matter, it should have been sent back to the Committee only

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 – Sections 2(4) and 31(2) – Eviction – having purchased the land in the year 2007 after parting with valuable consideration, the appellant cannot be condemned without providing him a full opportunity to put forth his case with supporting evidence – Accordingly, This Court allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Gujarat High Court as well as the orders passed by the authorities and remand the matter for consideration afresh on facts and law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANAIYALAL MAFATLAL PATEL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 31A and 31D – Termination of tenancy – Landlord sought to recover possession for the purpose of personal cultivation – It was unnecessary for the revisional authority to remand the case for framing an issue on the applicability of Section 31A-31D – Applicability of those provisions was dependent on the question of whether the landlord’s holding exceeded one unit of economic holding – That question was merely one of law, the fact of the landlord’s holding having already come on record before the original authority – Revisional authority could have taken upon itself the task of deciding the question and disposing off the dispute before itself

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. MURALIDHAR (D) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar,…

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Section 4-C – Raiyat land is not for mining – The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955, cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15 dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land was recorded as ‘Dungri’. The reason is that Raiyat land is not for mining – Thus, a contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and the classification of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory – Government of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the Respondent No. 1 – M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna…

You missed