Search Results for "Suo Moto Enquiry"

176 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 176 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner in Land Ceiling Case Due to Limitation Bar. Suo Moto Reopening Notice Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Quashed as Issued After 16 Years.

The petitioner, Shivram A. Galbe, was a landholder in village Devegaon, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. He filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharash...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Quashing Suo Moto Notice Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land Ceiling Act Due to 16-Year Delay. The Court Held That Revisional Power Must Be Exercised Within Reasonable Time, and a Delay of 16 Years Is Unreasonable.

The petitioner, Ansiram Gundiram Gavane, was a landholder in Parbhani, Maharashtra. In 1975, he filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Quashing Suo Moto Notice in Ceiling Act Case. Additional Commissioner's Notice Issued After 16 Years Held Without Jurisdiction Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.

The petitioner, Kondabai, as legal heir of deceased Gangubai Kadam, challenged a notice dated 23.06.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurang...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner in Ceiling Act Case Due to Inordinate Delay in Suo Moto Notice. Additional Commissioner's Power Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Must Be Exercised Within Reasonable Time, Not After 17 Years.

The petitioner, Shantabai Sundarrao Deshmukh, is the legal representative of Sundarrao Rangrao Deshmukh, who died on 31.01.1989. The husband of the pe...