Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a partition or compromise effected after publication of the notification under Section 11(1) of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 could be recognised to reduce the holding and avoid acquisition under the Act.
Analysis: Section 12 prohibits transfer, sub-division or partition of notified land after publication of the notification under Section 11, unless permission is obtained. Any transfer, sub-division or partition made in contravention of that prohibition is declared void and inoperative. The compromise relied upon by the appellant was entered into after the notification under Section 11(1), so it could not be used to alter the holding for the purpose of the statutory scheme. The plea that the compromise related back to the date of the earlier suit was rejected because the legislative command expressly barred post-notification partition, and a private arrangement cannot defeat a mandatory statutory restriction.
Conclusion: The post-notification compromise was ineffective and could not be taken into account to defeat acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly prohibits partition or transfer after a specified notification and declares any contrary transaction void, a later compromise or partition cannot operate by relation back to override the statutory bar.