An Unbiased View Of Lawyer In Chandigarh

The Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 provides for the abolition of temporarily and permanently settled zamindaris and other intermediary interests and tenures in the State of Orissa. - 3 (1) Of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act on April 26, 1956, with a view to preventing them from acting in a manner prejudicial to Advocates (will speak) the security of the State. For the Advocates (will speak) above reasons, these appeals are disposed of permitting the appellants to prefer their objections or submit their suggestions on the change of slab from Slab III to Slab I before the Collector within one month from today.

yards each in respect of acquisition made pursuant to Notification dated 18. All estates except trust estates have vested in the Government by virtue of notifications issued in that behalf by the Government under the Act. The Collector shall make appropriate inquiry on the objections or suggestions and forward his report to the State Government within another two months. Depending on the orders thus passed by the Government, the Collector shall revise the awards already passed, if required.

This is not an exceptional case by inadvertence or oversight of any judgment or statutory provisions running counter to the reason and result reached. No grounds were communicated to them under s. 8 (1) of the Act and no declarations were made under the proviso of that section. It stands in a class by itself and with respect to be a subject of special consideration by the State Government and thus requires special treatment.

For carrying out the purposes of trusts efficiently and to ensure proper performance of traditional rites and rituals in the religious institutions when trust estates are vested in the Governmentand that any land Advocates (will speak) or building (being part of a trust estate) vested in the Government maybe settled in certain circumstances with the person who immediately before such vesting was an intermediary in respect of such land or building. We are unable to accept this line of reasoning as sound.

14 the case of such a person will not go to the Advisory Board, but will have to be reviewed in consultation with the person nominated by the Government under s. It is also not shown that some part of the decision based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, hence the principle of per incuriam cannot be applied The learned senior counsel contends that in the Lord Jagannath case, not only did the Court ignore the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, it also ignored the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Raja Kishore Deb referred to supra, wherein this Court has held that the Lord Jagannath Temple occupies a unique position in the State of Odisha and is a temple of national importance and no other temple in that state can be compared with it.

Advocates; will speak, (iii) which was to the following Advocates (you could look here) effect: State of Karnataka[1], Division Bench of the High Court had an occasion to consider questions including one concerning rights of an alienee of a service inam land from its holder or the authorized holder. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. 14 to be reviewed within a period of 6 months from the date of detention and thereafter at intervals of every months if the detention continues, in consultation with a person possessing certain qualification who may be nominated in that behalf by the Government.

Under the circumstances we see no substance in the appeal and dismiss the same. A prior decision of this court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points of law in a latter case. The two petitioners were detained under S. Going back then to the proviso sub-s. The State Government shall pass appropriate orders on the report within another two months. 1972, in the peculiar facts and circumtances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be advanced if the claim is limited to the extent of 250 sq.

Therefore, it will be enough if the grounds are communicated to such a detenue within 6 months from the date of detention when his case will be reviewed under sub-s. I, Book III, Chapter XIII, pages 211-212). There will be, however, no order as to costs of the appeal in so far as the respondent has not appeared and contested the appeal before us. (emphasis laid by this Court) A perusal of the aforementioned objects and reasons makes it clear that the said amendment clearly encroaches upon the field of the Temple Act, 1955.

Findlay Shirras has pointed out that the classification of public revenue or income, both of the State and 44 of municipalities, has undergone considerable change in recent years and non-tax revenue of the State may be sub- divided into three main classes-(1) developmental revenues from the public domain and from the public undertakings, which include not only revenue from the State domain but also from the municipal domain; (2) administrative and miscellaneous revenues other than loan revenues; and (3) loan revenues (see Science of Public Finance by Findlay Shirras, Vol.

Unless it is a glaring case of obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on the principle of judgment 'per incuriam'. It dealt with various issues but the one concerning the present matter was Question No. (8) the Attorney-General points out that the declaration contemplated by the proviso can only be made in the case of a person detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.