Civil Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-CIVIL-....
Get started with Indian Law Cases
Your password will be generated automatically and will be sent to your email-id provided in this form.
Full Name  
Email ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City
Mobile No
* Mobile No is required for verification of identity
 Bare Acts  | Legal Resources  | Lawyer Locater  | Articles  | Legal Dictionary  | Download Desktop Software  | Subscription   Home   |   E-Journal  |  Sign-In  | Contact Us  | Disclaimers

Civil Law
 Search Tips
Civil Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-CIVIL-....
Judgement Subject Index/Important Decision/Topic

ILC-2016-SC-CIVIL-Jan-38

Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi (D) By Lrs. & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Head Note

Civil Law  - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section 6, 9, 10 - Clerical Mistake - Corrigendum - An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while a clerical mistake is a mistake of writing or typing error occurring due to accidental slip or omissions or error due to careless mistake or omission -Substituting different lands in place of the lands which have been notified by a statutory Notification under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) cannot and shall not be done by issuing a corrigendum unless the mandatory requirements contained in the aforementioned sections is complied with - A land holder cannot be divested from his land on the plea of clerical or arithmetical mistake liable to be corrected by issuing corrigendum.

Civil Law  - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section 6, 9, 10 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Urban Land ceiling - Excess Land Beyond Ceiling Limit -In the draft statement, neither the lands comprised within plot nos. 36 to 43 were shown as excess land nor objection was invited from the appellants - In the final statement prepared under Section 9 of the Act, again the land of plot nos. 36 to 43 was not shown as excess land beyond ceiling limit - Despite the aforesaid, authority alleged to have proceeded under Section 10(5) of the Act for taking possession of the land -No notice produced by the State to show that the appellants were asked to surrender or deliver the possession of plot nos. 36 to 43 - Nor there is any evidence to show that the appellants ever refused or failed to comply with any notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Act - Respondent-State has not come with clean hands - Case made out by the respondent-State the possession of plot nos. 36 to 43 was taken over on 26.6.1989 cannot be accepted - Impugned judgment passed by the High Court liable to be set aside - Appellants landholders held entitled to retain possession of the land comprised within Plot Nos. 36-43, Survey No.71 as in view of Repeal Act, 1999 as the same is not vested in the State.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Section 11 , Constitution of India, 1950  - Article 226

Res Judicata - Constructive Res Judicata - Question as to whether the appellants landholders were dispossessed from the land in question and the effect of the Repeal Act on this was not the issue in the earlier writ petition - It cannot be held that the instant writ petition is barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata.

Topic(s)-Urban Land Ceiling - Petitioner entitle of benefit of repeal of Act







Full Judgement Body


     
@2016 Indian Law
Name  
Email ID
Please Wait..