Search Results for "Aurangabad bench"

6559 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 6559 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Conversion of Open Space to Commercial Plot by MIDC — Violation of Public Trust and Statutory Procedure. Allotment of Reserved Open Space Without Following Section 14 of MIDC Act and Without Public Auction is Illegal.

The petitioners, residents of Waluj Industrial Area, Aurangabad, and one of them being an industrial unit holder, challenged the action of the Maharas...

© 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...

© 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

High Court Quashes Suo Motu Reopening Notice Under Ceiling Act for Being Time-Barred — Limitation Period of 3 Years Under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 Must Be Strictly Adhered To.

The petitioners, legal heirs of deceased Sidram Ganpatrao Solunke, were original land holders in proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (...

© 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 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...