Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
10 judgments · newest first · showing 1–10
The case concerned land owned by Jaipal Singh that was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and subsequently sold to Mohan Singh in 1974 and later to the present appellant. While the surplus‑land proceedings were pending, the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, …
The case concerned land allotted to Dhanna Singh, a displaced person, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which was later declared surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and allotted to Pohla Singh and others. Dhanna Singh (through his …
The dispute concerned whether two prior mortgagees, who had become landlords after purchasing the mortgagee's interest, could retain possession of agricultural land as tenants after the mortgage was redeemed by the owners. The owners (appellants) obtained a decree for redemption and possession, …
The appellant, legatee of the late Daljit Singh, challenged the allotment of land declared surplus under the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to respondents 5‑10. The landowner had been declared surplus in 1976, but the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into force in 1973 and its Section 28 …
The appellants purchased a portion of land from Smt. Charanjit Kaur after the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 had been amended in 1956. The landowner held more than the permissible limit of 30 standard acres (equivalent to 60 ordinary acres) and had not applied for reservation of land …
The appellants, tenants of agricultural land, applied under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 in 1960 but were rejected for not having twelve years' continuous possession. A second application in 1965 was allowed, and the Financial Commissioner confirmed the order. The …
The Collector, under the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, determined that Inder Singh held 18.82 standard acres of surplus land and ordered its surrender in July 1961, after which the land was taken over by the State and redistributed to landless persons. Subsequent consolidation …
Mohan Lal, the father of the respondents, sued Kartar Singh for possession of land, claiming ownership and that an eviction order under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, was void. The lower courts held that the landlord‑tenant relationship had ended and the Collector …
Labh Singh owned 32‑8 standard acres of agricultural land, of which 7‑4 acres were mortgaged with possession before the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 came into force. The mortgagee was deemed the landowner, so Singh’s holding was treated as less than the permissible limit of 30 …
The appeal concerned the interpretation of Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The petitioner argued that Section 8, which imposes a minimum tenancy term of three years for tenancies created after the 1956 amendment, does not create an additional ground of …
