Search Results for "ministerial orders"

400 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 400 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening of Ceiling Proceedings After 15 Years Due to Inordinate Delay. Suo Moto Revision Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Held Invalid for Lack of Reasonable Time and Violation of Natural Justice.

The petitioner, Dyanoba S/o Bapurao Shendge, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 20th April 1992 passed by the Additional C...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner's Challenge to Reopening of Ceiling Proceedings After 15 Years. Inordinate Delay and Violation of Natural Justice Render Suo Motu Revision Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Unsustainable.

The petitioner, Madan Shendge, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 20th April 1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Div...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notice in Land Ceiling Case Due to Inordinate Delay. Suo Motu Revision Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Initiated After 16 Years Held Unjustified as Original Order of Non-Surplus Holder Had Attained Finality.

The petitioner, Baban S/o Munjaji Shere, as legal representative of his deceased father Munjaji S/o Manaji, challenged a notice dated 13th July 1992 i...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner in Land Ceiling Case Due to Limitation Bar. Suo Moto Enquiry Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Initiated After 17 Years Held Without Jurisdiction.

The petitioner, Madhavrao Laxmanrao Karhale, a resident of Parbhani, filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner in Land Ceiling Case Due to Limitation Bar. Additional Commissioner's Suo Moto Notice Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Issued After Eight Years Held Without Jurisdiction.

The petitioner, Tukaram S/o Gopalrao Nakate, a resident of Hadgaon, District Parbhani, filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural...

© 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 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 Petition in Land Ceiling Case Due to Limitation Bar. Suo Motu Revision Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Initiated Beyond Three-Year Period Is Without Jurisdiction.

The petitioner, Ghanshyam Tukaram Solunke, was an original land holder in proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Ac...