While adjudicating SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12060 of 2011 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12061 of 2011, the HON. MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT has recently ruled and observed that ” The question arises as to whether the District Collector was justified in ignoring the Kachha entry and issuing the notice only to the original vendor. The cancellation of that entry has direct nexus and adverse impact upon the holding in question. Therefore, when the rights of parties are infringed on account of any action, even if it is administrative action, the notice is required to be issued to the party concerned, who is likely to be affected. On this principle alone without opining upon the merits of the order of the Collector, the order is quashed and set aside. The Court reiterate at the cost of repetition that the Court has not opined about the merit of passing the order of cancelling the entry no. 68. However, the order is required to be quashed only on account of the fact that the present petitioners whose names are there in the form of Kachha entries were not heard and they were likely to be affected.”
Archives
Blogroll
Recent Posts
- SC: “Right to sleep is a Fundamental Right. To disturb sleep is a violation of Human Right.”
- Bombay High Court questioned “Anna Hazare’s Stir as interference with functioning of the Parliament ?”
- No Revenue Authority can ignore even a Kaccha Entry : Gujarat High Court
- In absence of allegations that applicants at the relevant time were in day to day affairs & management of the accused Company in a complaint, the applicants cannot be held vicariously liable under Sec: 141 of NI Act
- “Absence of basis ingredients of offence in a complaint justifies quashing of such complaint” : SC
Tags
Add new tagFriends' Update
-
Loading ...Please wait..