Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.52 seconds)
Documents citing Gurbinder Kaur Brar And Anr vs Uoi And Ors on 22 July, 2013

Khedut Hit Rakshak Samiti & 134 vs National Highway Authority Of India & ... on 10 March, 2015

The case of Gurbandarcor Brar [supra] was in  the   context   of   rejection   of   larger   number   of  substantive objections without assigning reasons as an  outcome   of   non­application   of   mind   by   the   competent  authority and the Apex Court deprecated the system of  governance   prevailing   in   present   day   scenario   and  tendency of junior officers in administration acting  at dictates of their superiors and accordingly it was  held   that   failure   to   examine   substantive   grounds   on  which land owners have objected the land acquisition  result into miscarriage of justice.
Gujarat High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Thakur Dwara vs Chd Adm And Anr on 3 September, 2014

33. To our mind, though in Surinder Singh Brars' case, the issue was mainly that procedure had not been followed so as to benefit some private interest of building/construction companies, however, the law laid down in that case, as also reiterated in Gurbinder Kaur Brars' case, as seen VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -14- above, is that it is the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, alone, who is the Competent Authority to sanction acquisition proceedings in respect of any land sought to be compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that such authority cannot be delegated to the Advisor to the Administrator.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A R Singh - Full Document

Augusthy vs The State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2015

Another decision of the hon'ble Apex court in Gurbinder Kaur Brar and Anoher v. Union of India and Others [2013 KHC 4573] was cited to contend that, illegality if any existing at the time of initiation of the land acquisition proceedings cannot be saved by virtue of any declaration under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Few more decisions were also cited in order to contend that exercise of the statutory powers vested under the Act must be based on reasonable grounds and cannot lapse into arbitrateness or caprice, and also to contend that notification issued under the Act, if found to be illegal on the grounds of malafide exercise of power, then it cannot be cured and the State Government cannot be allowed to proceed further with acquisition in such case, which will amount to colourable exercise of power vested on the authority.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - C V Rehim - Full Document

Raj Kumar Gandhi vs Chandigarh Administration on 11 May, 2018

19. In   view   of   the   various   decisions   rendered   in   the   same   matter which   have   attained   finality,   it   would   not   be   appropriate   to   take   a different   view.   Reliance   has   been   placed   by   learned   counsel   for   the appellant on the decisions of this Court in Surinder Singh Brar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 403 and Gurbinder Kaur Brar & 16 Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 228. In both the cases, the matter was with respect to sanction for land acquisition which was not granted by the appropriate Government i.e., the Administrator. In the instant case, the Advisor had approved the award. Since there is  ex­ post facto approval and a large number of other matters have already been dismissed, it is not considered appropriate to make interference in this matter on the aforesaid ground, particularly when sanction for acquisition had been granted by the appropriate authority, is not in dispute in the instant matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - A Mishra - Full Document

C.Samraj vs The Government Of Pondicherry on 22 July, 2014

20.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied on 2013(11) SCC 228, Gurbinder Kaur Brar v. Union of India, to contend that fresh declaration under section 6 can be issued as has been directed in the above said decision. There is no dispute with regard to the power of the Court to quash the original declaration and direct the authorities to issue fresh declaration under section 6. But the question is as to what is the period of limitation available for passing such fresh declaration. That issue was not considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader and on the other hand, the same was considered only by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which we have referred to in detail supra. Therefore, we find the above decision relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document

Surinder Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 August, 2013

8. We are unable to accept this plea for the reason that the first paragraph of the report is a recital of the land; second paragraph is the nature of the objections taken (without dealing them in the report) and the third paragraph is the desirability of setting up an STP. The desirability of STP is not in question but what is the question is the location of it. There is no opinion whatsoever of the Collector. On the other hand, the last paragraph which is really the recommendation is not a recommendation but asking the superior authorities to decide the objections. Thus the Land Acquisition Collector has abandoned his role under Sub Section (2) of Section 5-A of the said Act to make a recommendation on the objections leaving the issue entirely to the concerned authorities. The concerned authorities are then required to act upon the recommendations of the Collector but in the absence of the recommendations, there is a legal flaw in exercise of the jurisdiction by the Collector under Section 5-A of the said Act especially keeping in view the observations made in Gurbinder Kaur Brar case (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next