Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 169 (2.68 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd vs Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) ... on 19 October, 1994

Madhuvana House Building vs The Assistant Commissioner on 2 November, 2022

7. In the instant case, the order sheet maintained by the reference Court as well as the impugned judgment 14 and award will clearly indicate that the Additional District Government Pleader (ADGP) has purported to represent both respondent No.1 / LAO as well as the petitioner herein, which is clearly contrary to the material on record and the only inference that can be drawn from the material on record including the order sheet and the impugned judgment and award is that the petitioner was not notified about the proceedings and was not provided sufficient or reasonable opportunity to participate and contest the proceedings. At any rate, the material on record also indicates that the petitioner has not participated in the proceedings nor filed statement of objections nor contested the same and consequently, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court referred to supra, the present petition is to be held to be maintainable and by adopting a justice oriented approach, liberty is to be granted in favour of the petitioner to contest the proceedings by setting aside the impugned judgment and award and remitting the matter back to the reference Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame by keeping open all rival contentions.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) vs V.S.Govindarajan on 6 April, 2010

38. By perusal of the records of Reference Court, it is seen that the State Government Pleader appeared for Land Acquisition Officer and also represented the Divisional Engineer, Highways. We do not think that the the State Government Pleader can effectively represent the Union of India or National Highways Authorities of India. As held by the Supreme Court, the LAO who was represented by the State Government Pleader do not generally adduce evidence much less proper and relevant evidence to rebut the claim for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will be formal and ineffective or at time, no evidence at all would be adduced. In this Batch of LAOPs, no evidence was adduced on the side of LAO and no document was marked. Observing that Government Agencies remain insensitive even if stakes involved run into several crores of public money, in AIR 1995 SC 1004 [M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others], the Supreme Court held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document

The Land Acquisition Officer vs M.Mahalingam on 6 April, 2010

40. By perusal of the records of Reference Court, it is seen that the State Government Pleader appeared for Land Acquisition Officer also represented the Divisional Engineer, Highways. We do not think that the State Government Pleader can effectively represent the Union of India or National Highways Authorities of India. As held by the Supreme Court, the LAO who was represented by the State Government Pleader do not generally adduce evidence much less proper and relevant evidence to rebut the claim for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will be formal and ineffective or at time, no evidence at all would be adduced. Observing that Government Agencies remain insensitive even if stakes involved run into several crores of public money, in AIR 1995 SC 1004 [M/s.Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others], the Supreme Court held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - R Banumathi - Full Document

The Special Tahsildar [La vs V.Saravanan on 6 April, 2010

41. By perusal of the records of Reference Court, it is seen that the State Government Pleader appeared for Land Acquisition Officer also represented the Divisional Engineer, Highways. We do not think that the State Government Pleader can effectively represent the Union of India or National Highways Authorities of India. As held by the Supreme Court, the LAO who was represented by the State Government Pleader do not generally adduce evidence much less proper and relevant evidence to rebut the claim for higher compensation. Even the cross-examination will be formal and ineffective or at time, no evidence at all would be adduced. Observing that Government Agencies remain insensitive even if stakes involved run into several crores of public money, in AIR 1995 SC 1004 [M/s.Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others], the Supreme Court held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - R Banumathi - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Hans Raj on 8 April, 2016

60 of 67 ::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2017 10:23:49 ::: RFA No.1956 of 2010 & connected matters 61 awards of the Land Acquisition Courts are only admissible in evidence and cannot be binding on the parties and that such awards cannot shut out the consideration of other evidence of comparable nature. It was further held that the paretic (party ?) can always insist that particular awards be ignored and determination of market value be done on the basis of the evidence brought by them. This Court while making the aforementioned observations, relied upon certain other judicial (sic) joint and severable. This aspect seems to have been adjudged in different cases depending upon the nature/source of rights, the cause of action, (sic) the contradictory nature of decrees impossible of execution, likely to result when considered differently. It is for this reason any standardised formula was avoided and the matter left for the consideration of courts, on the peculiar nature of the cases coming for determination. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed by us that the appellant claimants have each their own distinct, separate and independent rights, the principles enumerated in Harihar Prasad case and Indian Oxygen Ltd. case squarely apply with all force. The appeals even de horsthe claims of the deceased and others who have not chosen to approach the High Court or this Court, were neither rendered incapable of consideration nor impossible of according any relief nor could be held difficult to enforce the decree that may be passed, in favour of the remaining appellants without suffering the vice of inconsistency. Even if it is likely to result in two different sets of judgments of varying content, purport or reason, as long as enforcement of the decrees passed therein is not rendered impossible due to mutual contradiction in terms of self-destructive nature, there is no justification whatsoever to assume them to be inconsistent or 61 of 67 ::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2017 10:23:49 ::: RFA No.1956 of 2010 & connected matters 62 contradictory decrees, at all. The mere fact that in a set of similar or identical nature of cases two different nature or type of decrees were necessitated is no reason to treat them to be inconsistent or contradictory decrees, so long as both can be executed and enforced without either of them being destructive of the other.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 2 - R S Malik - Full Document

Union Of India Rep. By The vs V.Kumaravelu on 25 November, 2021

3. Continuing his arguments, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyveli and others, (1995) 1 SCC 221, the Apex Court has mandated that the requisitioning body/interested party should have been impleaded as one of the necessary parties by the landowners while seeking for enhancement of compensation. In the absence of the beneficiary who ultimately is to bear the higher compensation, no complete and effectual determination of binding just and proper compensation to the acquired land would be made. The denial of the right to a person interested is in negation of fair and just procedure offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Afr Smt. Janabi Naik & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties on 16 April, 2024

In view of such position, considering the grievance of the petitioners and taking into consideration the aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court in M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, being the legal representatives of the original purchaser, who purchased the land measuring Ac.0.50 dec from Plot No.247 under Khata No.49, have right to be considered for apportionment of the awarded amount along with other claimants, who are parties before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh.
Orissa High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next