P.V. DEVASSIAversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
1995 INSC 1551 March 1995Dismissed
The appellant, P.V. Devassia, executed two gift deeds transferring 10 acres and 11 acres of land to his two married sons and sought exemption of those lands from the ceiling area prescribed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Land Tribunal allowed an exemption of only six acres to each son, a decision affirmed…
TEJA SINGH AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
1995 INSC 1561 March 1995Dismissed
The Improvement Trust of Ludhiana framed a Development‑cum‑Housing scheme which was later modified and sought State sanction under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The appellants challenged the scheme on the grounds that the modified scheme required re‑publication, that notices under sections 36 and 38 were not s…
P.K. KUTTY AHUJA RAJA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
1996 INSC 1621 February 1996Dismissed
The Agricultural Income Tax Officer assessed Rs 84,788.78 for the period 1956‑58, which was quashed by the Kerala High Court on 1 January 1968, limiting liability to a 1/693 share of the estate. The appellants filed a suit in 1974 to recover amounts already paid by successors; the trial court decreed in their favour, b…
GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SUFIPINDversusSTATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS.
1996 INSC 1631 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The Gram Panchayat of Sufipind claimed that plot No.71 was a pathway vested in it under Section 4(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961. An application for realignment of the plot was filed in 1974, long after the consolidation proceedings had been completed in 1959. The authority, exercising revi…
SURAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusMEHENGA (DEAD) BY LRS.
1996 INSC 1641 February 1996Dismissed
The appellants challenged a sale deed dated 29 September 1959, alleging that it was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the deed valid; the first appellate court reversed that finding, holding that adequate consideration had been paid and no fraud …