Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 165 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Manav Dharam Trust & Anr on 4 May, 2017

Sursati vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 22 January, 2020

Both the judgments in Surendra Nath Yadav as well as in Vipin Agrawal considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharm Trust (supra); the former case holding that the subsequent purchaser has a right to receive compensation but the later case taking a contrary view distinguishing Manav Dharm Trust Case as being under the Land Acquisition Act and not under the National Highways Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sursati vs State Of U.P. And Others on 5 September, 2022

In Shiv Kumar and another's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and another's case (supra) does not lay down the law correctly. It was held that purchase of land after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act is void and the buyer cannot seek any declaration that the acquisition under the 2013 Act has lapsed due to illegality/irregularity of taking possession under the 1894 Act. Relevant paras 19 to 24 are extracted below:
Allahabad High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 1 - R Bindal - Full Document

Yantraleshwar Gupta Alias Dhreej Kumar ... vs State Of U P And 10 Others on 22 May, 2019

83. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2017 SC 2450 (Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Another) is concerned wherein the Supreme Court has held that all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be paid on account of the acquisition of land under the Act, 2013 are "persons interested" and any person whose primary source of livelihood is likely to be adversely affected is also a "person interested", the definition of "affected family" as defined under Section 3, clause (c) sub-clause (ii) of the Act, 2013 indicates that even a family residing in the lands sought to be acquired, be it an owner or not, is an affected family, and if a family or a person is affected, necessarily, he has a right to approach the Court to protect his interests the same has no application in the present case as that was a case where acquisition proceedings had been initiated and dispute was only on the question of locus standi where it appears that the land had been transferred and the case of the Government of NCT of Delhi (supra), in our opinion, has no application to the facts of the present case as in the present case there is no 'acquisition' either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under the Act, 2013 and we have already held that the Act, 2013 has no application in the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pushpa Rani vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 21 May, 2019

Learned counsels for the respondents submit that the judgment in the case of Manav Dharma (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present cases in view of the fact that the question of title stands decided in proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act. The order of eviction has been passed and thus it cannot be said that the petitioners have any right, title or interest over the land in question. Prima facie we find force in the submissions made by counsels for the respondents.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next