text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
Under section 3(10) of the Act, private land comprises of two categories, private lands technically so called, and lands deemed to be private lands. Ratio |
In regard to private lands technically so called, it must be the domain or home farm land of the landholder a,,.understood in law. Ratio |
The mere fact that particular lands are described in popular parlance as pannai kambattam, sir, khas, is not decisive of the question unless the lands so called partake of the characteristics of domain or homefarm lands. Ratio |
In our opinion the correct test to ascertain whether a land is domain or home farm is that accepted by the Judicial Committee in Yerlagadda Malikarjuna Prasad Nayudu vs Somayya(1), that is, whether it is land which a zamindar has cultivated himself and intends to retain as resumable for cultivation by himself even if f... |
The Legislature did not use the words 'domain or home farm land ' without attaching to them a meaning; and it is reasonable to suppose that the Legislature would attach to these words the meaning which would 'be given to them in ordinary English. Ratio |
It seems to us that the sub clause (b) (i) of the definition is intended to cover those lands which come obviously within what would Ordinarily be recognised as the domain or home farm, that is to say, lands appurtenant to the landholder 's residence and kept for his enjoyment and use. Ratio |
The home farm is land which the landlord cultivates himself, as distinct from land which he lets out to tenants to be farmed. Ratio |
The first clause is, therefore meant to include and signify those lands which are in the ordinary sense of he word home farm lands. Ratio |
The other clauses of the definition appear to deal with those lands which would not necessarily be regarded as home farm lands in the ordinary usage of the term; and with reference to those lands there is a proviso that lands purchased at a sale for arrears of revenue shall not be regarded as private lands unless culti... |
It seeing to us that the definition reads as a whole (1) I.L.R. 3 Sup.CI/68 5 766 indicates clearly that the ordinary test for 'private land ' is the ' test of retention by the landholder for his personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal supervision. Ratio |
No doubt, such lands may be let on short leases for the convenience of the landholder without losing their distinctive character; but it is not the intention or the scheme of the Act to treat as private those lands with reference to which the only peculiarity is the fact that the landlord owns both the warams in the la... |
There must, in our opinion be something in the evidence either by way of proof of direct cultivation or by some clear indication of an intent to regard these lands as retained for the personal use of the landholder and his establishment in order to place those lands in the special category of private lands in which a t... |
In the present case there is no proof that the lands were ever directly cultivated by the landholder. Ratio |
Admittedly, soon after the grant of 1862 the estate came under the administration of Receivers, who always let out the lands to the tenants to be cultivated. Ratio |
In exhibit B 8, the Record of Rights the lands are entered in column 5 as Punja or dry land. Ratio |
In column 4 which requires the entry to be made as private land they are not entered as private lands. Ratio |
If was argued for the appellant that the lands are sometimes called 'Padugai ' and that the expression meant that the lands were within the flood bank and forming part of the river bed. Ratio |
But the description of the land as 'Padugai ' is not of much consequence because they are also called as Orathur 'Thottam meaning a garden where garden crops are raised to distinguish it from paddy fields. Ratio |
It appears that the lands actually lie between two rivers and comprise more than 100 acres, and by their physical feature cannot be 'padugai ' in the sense in which the term is normally used. Ratio |
The argument was stressed on behalf of the appellant that leasing rights of the land were auctioned periodically. Ratio |
But the High Court has observed that one and the same tenant continued to bid at the auction and there was evidence that tenants continued to cultivate the lands without break or change, and the fact that there were periodical auctions of the lease rights did not necessarily deprive the tenants of the occupancy rights ... |
We accordingly hold that the appellant has not adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under section 18: of the Act that the lands in the inam village are not private land and the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case must be rejected. RPC |
For the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of the Madras High Court dated January 10, 1956 is correct and these appeals must be dismissed with costs one set of hearing fee. RPC |
iminal Appeal No.155 of 1965. FAC |
M. R. Barot and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants. FAC |
P. K. Chatterjee, R. H. Dhebar and section P. Nayyar, for the respondent. FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde,J. FAC |
The appellants in this appeal are two police officers. FAC |
The first appellant Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave was the police Sub Inspector and the second appellant, Rajuji Gambhirji, was his writer constable in February 1963. FAC |
At that time both of them were attached to the Navrangpura police station, Ahmedabad. FAC |
They were tried and convicted by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad, for offences under section 161 read with section 165 A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (No. 2 of 1947), and for those offences each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison... |
The judgment of the learned Special Judge was affirmed by the High Court ,of Gujarat. FAC |
It is against that judgment, this appeal has been filed, after obtaining special leave from this Court. FAC |
To state briefly, the prosecution case is as follows : Ramanlal, the complainant in this case, wrote a postcard on February 11, 1963 to one Madhukanta, a lady teacher, requesting her to ask Chandrakanta, another lady teacher working with her, to meet him in connection with certain work. FAC |
Therein he also wrote that he would be glad if Madhukanta could accompany Chandrakanta. FAC |
The headmaster of the school where Madhukanta and Chandrakanta were working, happened to read that postcard. FAC |
She took Madhukanta to task for allowing strangers to write to her in that manner. FAC |
Piqued by the conduct of Ramanlal, Madhukanta made over the postcard in question to the first appellant, probably with a request that Ramanlal might be pulled up for his conduct. FAC |
On February 16, 1963, the first appellant sent the second appellant to fetch Ramanlal to the police station. FAC |
On his arrival at the police station, Ramanlal was abused and slapped by the first appellant. FAC |
With a view to got out of the situation. FAC |
Ramanlal agreed to pay the sum demanded. FAC |
He therefore asked the first appellant time for payment till the 18th. FAC |
The first appellant agreed to the same. FAC |
On the morning of 18th, Ramanlal met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, AntiCorruption Department, and complained to him about the incident in question. FAC |
He was asked to give a written complaint in that regard which he did. FAC |
Thereafter he produced before the Dy. FAC |
S.P. ten currency notes of Rs. 10 each. FAC |
The numbers of those notes were noted and then those notes were treated with anthracene powder. FAC |
Ramanlal was asked to give those notes to the first appellant if he made any further demand for bribe. FAC |
Thereafter he was sent to the police station with the panch witness, Dahyabhai. FAC |
But when they went to the police station they found that the first appellant was not there. FAC |
They were told that he had gone to attend court. FAC |
Hence Raman lal and Dahyabhai returned to the office of the Anti Corruption Department and reported to the Dy. FAC |
S.P. about the same. FAC |
Under instructions from the Dy. FAC |
S.P. he again went to the office of the Anti Corruption Department on the evening of that day with currency notes. FAC |
Those notes were again treated with anthracene powder and their numbers noted. FAC |
Ramanlal was again sent to the Police station with Dahyabhai on that evening at about 5 3o p.m. FAC |
When they went there, the first appellant was not there, but the second appellant was there. FAC |
He told them that the first appellant was expected in the station at any moment. FAC |
Thereafter the second appellant, Ramanlal and Dahyabhai went to a nearby tea shop and took tea. FAC |
By the time they returned to the police ,station the first appellant was there. FAC |
Ramanlal told the first appellant that he had brought the money. FAC |
Then he asked him to pay the same to the second appellant who was in one of the rooms of the police station. FAC |
When Ramanlal went to pay the money to the second appellant, the first appellant took out the postcard written by Ramanlal to Madhukanta, showed it to Dahyabhai and thereafter tore it to pieces and burnt it. FAC |
Meanwhile Ramanlal went and paid the currency notes in question to the second appellant. FAC |
While Ramanlal and Dahyabhai were in the police station, police Sub Inspector Erulker and constable Santramji, both belonging to the Anti Corruption Department, were observing from a nearby compound the happenings in the police station. FAC |
The second appellant immediately on receiving the notes in question left the police station. FAC |
But he was followed by constable Santramji. FAC |
From the police station the second appellant first went to the shop of one Sanghvi and changed one of the currencynotes. FAC |
From there he went to the pan shop of Sendhalal and there changed three more currency notes. FAC |
Thereafter constable Santramji was not able to keep track of him. FAC |
Meanwhile when things did not go according to plan, Ramanlal was somewhat confused. FAC |
He after paying the amount to the second appellant L1OSup. FAC |
Cl/68 3 26 straight rused back to the Dy. FAC |
S.P. and told him what had happened at the police station. FAC |
Immediately, the Dy. FAC |
He seized the burnt pieces of the postcard. FAC |
Some of the unburnt pieces were recognised by Ramanlal as portions of the postcard written by him to Madhukanta. FAC |
From there the Dy. FAC |
S.P. proceeded to the shop of Sanghvi and Sendhalal and seized the currency notes changed in their shops by the second appellant. FAC |
Their numbers tallied with the numbers of the notes earlier handed over to Ramanlal after being treated with anthracene powder. FAC |
Those notes were full of anthracene powder. FAC |
The same night the second appellant was arrested and at that time it was found there ,was considerable anthracene powder on his person. FAC |
After in vestigation the appellants were prosecuted for the offences mentioned earlier. FAC |
Both the trial court and the High Court have accepted the prosecution case. FAC |
This Court being a court of special jurisdiction does not examine the evidence afresh except under exceptional circumstances. Ratio |
No good reasons were shown to us for departing from the ordinary rule. Ratio |
Hence we proceed on the basis that the findings of fact reached by the High Court are ,.correct. Ratio |
Before proceeding to examine the various contentions ad vanced on behalf of the appellants it is necessary to mention that in this case there were two investigations. Ratio |
As seen earlier the trap in this case was laid by the Dy. Ratio |
S.P., Anti Corruption Department. Ratio |
But when the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge objection was taken to the trial of the case on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Bombay State Commissioner of Police Act, 1959, the investigation in this case should have been made by a Superintendent of Police as there was a Police Co... |
The learned Special Judge accepted that contention and directed a fresh investigation to the extent possible by one of the Superintendents of Police. Ratio |
Because of the fresh investigation, in respect of most of the prosecution witnesses, the police diary contained, two statements one recorded by the Dy.S.P. and the other by the S.P. in the course of the trial of the case, several prosecution witnesses were alleged to have gone back on the statements given by them durin... |
While deposing in court 27 Madhukanta asserted that she had destroyed the postcard written by Ramanlal as soon as she read the same whereas both Ramanlal as well as the panch witness Dahyabhai had deposed that the first appellant had shown them the postcard in question. Ratio |
S.P. wherein she appears to have stated that she had given the postcard in question to the first appellant. Ratio |
Mr. Barot, learned counsel for the appellants, strenuously contended that in view of the order of the Special Judge, directing re investigation, in law, the record of the investigation made by the Dy.S.P. stood wiped out, and therefore Madhukanta should not have been cross examined with reference to the statement alleg... |
We are unable to accept this contention as correct. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.