CHANDRASHEKHAR HARPRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P
LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-49
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (FROM: GWALIOR)
Decided on September 30,1980

CHANDRASHEKHAR HARPRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

P.SAMBASIVE RAO V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED MADURAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INOOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
AUTHORISED OFFICER THANJAVUR VS. S NAGAMATHA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF M.P. VS. JAGDISH PANDEY AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-85] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for quashing the order of Revenue, dated 23-2-1978 (Annexure VII) confirming the order passed by the Competent Authority, dated 8-1-1976 (Annexure VI) declaring transfer by way of sale in question to be void.
(2.)THE case of the petitioner brifly stated is as under :-Doharsingh, respondent No. 4, held 88. 99 acres of unirrigated land. He entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner in respect of 21. 50 acres out of the land held by him in the year 1970. The land is situated in village Piparia (Sohagpur) in District Hoshangabad. Rs. 2500 were received by Doharsingh by way of advance in pursuance of the said agreement to sale and the petitioner was put in possession of the said land and his possession is also recorded in Khasra for the year 1971-72 (Annexure I ). In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement to sale, a sale-deed was executed and registered on 17-4-1972 in favour of the petitioner by Doharsingh, respondent no. 4.
(3.)IN proceedings under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings act, 1960, (for short, the M. P. Act) which were initiated by the Competent authority, the sale in question was defended on the grounds (i) that the sale was by such a holder of land, who held land within the ceiling limit prescribed by the law as it stood then, that Doharsingh, the holder, his wife and his son (minor) held 75 acres each; (ii) that the transfer by way of sale on 17-4-1972, having been made one day prior to the publication of the Bill which ultimately became the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 (No. 20 of 1974), cannot be regarded to be made either in anticipation of or to defeat the provisions of the said Amendment Act, and, (iii) that the transfer in question was not Benami, or made to defeat provisions of the Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.